I commented on that note and resolved the comment. I believe it's in everybody's best interest to remove the area entirely because now, I can't find any record of the source of the management area and the link I originally included is dead. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Much appreciated!

As I'm sure you were able to reasonably deduce, it was not an implicit tagging of the wooded area as a proposed chairlift but more likely a stray tag that was picked up when adding tags to multiple features.

Just a few weeks ago. It was my mistake. I conflated the bridge at 98th with a different one. I've re-added it. Thanks for the catch.

Fixed. Thanks!

Good afternoon. I also work near 200 South and use these new and improved ways daily to commute. That said, I regularly reference the wiki but I missed the text at the beginning detailing what you explained above. The tagging schema for cycleways has been updated since I last worked with cycleways. Cheers!

Thank you!! Really appreciate the positive comments. It’s so rare these days!

Thanks for adding exit numbers! I was just wondering where you found those? I was going to drive the corridor to get them but haven't had the chance yet.

I haven't looked at this area since this changeset. I agree they are most likely tourism=camp_pitch. This would have been among some of earliest edits when I wasn't as well versed in OSM tags as I am now. I'll leave this at your discretion as to the tagging. I looked and it does appear there are picnic tables (NV State Parks does a good job on amenities) and given the way the access roads look, I would assume these are all camp sites. This would be in line with the way other NV state parks are configured.

Both good points. Where Bridge St. is the de facto Main Street, it’s avoided by most locals due mostly to its narrow construction, high concentration of businesses, pedestrian traffic, etc. If not for its connectivity to points North and South, I probably would have dropped that section to Tertiary in favor of the alternate routing via Melarkey and 4th. The other route does have on street parking but with the city undertaking a project to eliminate that in the near future to improve vehicle travel, this routing is a envisioned as a “higher priority” route and has been something I’ve enjoyed having in the routing softwares exclusively utilizing OSM.

Hello, you downgraded these sections that were deliberately tagged by me as secondary. Both Melarkey Street and the section of W 4th St. handle the majority of north-south moves between US 95 and parts north of town. For us who live here, this remains a very worthy secondary corridor providing a quicker route to US 95 (1 stoplight vs. 2). It's a small town and these things matter you know.

Thanks! I gotta say that all the ground cover you've been adding looks really good, especially around all the resorts. Also a big fan of your classification work in the valley. I try to help out where I can.

I appreciate the concerns. I'll give a bit of context around why I decided to move forward with the ground cover.
- I'm a principal cartographer on the Mayflower project, working directly with Extell Development.
- The resort is preparing to open for the 24/25 season with the potential for a soft opening this winter. As such, all runs have been cut and lifts are beginning to be installed.
- I'm utilizing drone surveys taken as recent as several days ago. These are both my own and surveys used with permission.
- Most of the changes coming in the next year will be to infrastructure at the base. Ground cover changes should be minimal at this point.

I hope this helps. Feel free to reach out with any questions.

Yes. It will be the non-wooded area of a larger multi-polygon that I have yet to draw/add. Haven't had time to get to it because of work constraints. The goal is to get to it this weekend. Thanks.

Apologies, I thought I had responded to you. I was cleaning out my inbox and found our conversation.

I was able to get this cleaned up and looking good. Thanks again for your contributions. I am local. I work downtown not far from where you've traditionally had meetups. I know Wednesday's have been difficult for me but I will keep an eye on the calendar and try to make the meetups. Thanks again!

Haha I agree. There would definitely be some candid discussion. Maybe a secondary tag like grazing=yes but that’s a conversation for another day.

That sounds good on the highways. I didn’t comment anything because they’ve long been edits that I’ve been contemplating and you beat me to it. I’ll get those added to the Nevada guidance sometime in the next week or two so they’re “official”. I agree that making a slack proposal for the Elko to Boise via Mountain Home is a good idea. I will say that both US 93 and 95 are the options that most people will likely choose over NV 225 just due to location, route hierarchy, winter maintenance, etc. Thats just my basic take but float the proposal, I think it’s well worth a discussion. Also, Las Vegas is looking really good! Kudos there!

The fields are used intermittently for grazing. They do have cattle operations and there are times where the fields are opened to grazing but it’s primary use is river irrigated crop land which is why I originally opted to tag as landuse=farmland as opposed to meadow. I think Esri Clarity is from around 2008 so it’s really old. Esri Imagery is from 2018 and it shows both crop cultivation and grazing.

The original trace was from Maxar because it was the most recent prior to Bings upload in 2022. Esri and Maxar are basically the same from what I’ve seen in my editing. West of 95 is what I’ve been working on heavily the last 2-3 days since your initial edits. That should be appearing on the slippy soon. There are large groves of oak, maple, and other broadleaves trees that are clustered around the river. West of 95, there are the same clusters but you’re definitely right l, there’s a lot more scrub. I’ve made that distinction (and continue to work on it). East of 95, I agree with your distinction. In my haste, I made a large scale revert that took everything back to what it was prior to your edit. My goal is to finish west of 95 before I get to the east. I’m a little wary of the wetland tag just because the aerial makes its look that way but on the ground but it’s quite different. The river is deep and the area on either side that appears to be wetland is often just scrub or heath (river hasn’t flooded since 1984). But, like I said, I’m still working on it and I do appreciate you bringing that area back to my attention because it’s always been one of those things that I’ve meant to get back to but have been working on other things.

Also, just another note that I wanted to reach out to you about. I noticed you made some highway classification changes. I don’t disagree. I’d just ask that before making those in the future, you consult the local community and the Nevada guidance. If you have any comments/suggestions. Let me know and we can get those added. Thanks!

I disagree. This is where local knowledge is key and why I make specific mention to having verified my tagging on the ground. I specifically tagged it as farmland because:
A: I know the farmer who owns that land and the crops that he grows
B: The imagery we are referencing (Bing) shows the farms as fallow currently because 2022 was exceptionally dry and he was working other assets he has elsewhere.
C: The crop grown there is alfalfa

As for the natural area tagging. If you would look closer, you will see that because you took the time to re-tag a lot of the natural areas, it gave me cause to take a closer look and be more deliberate in my tagging. You will see that I have gone to great lengths to differentiate between wooded areas, scrub, heath, wetland, and other natural area tagging. Once again, this is where local knowledge and surveying much of the area with my own eyes gives me the advantage.

Hey! Just wanted to make you aware that a lot of the track you tagged as "abandoned" is still in service at the Peterson Industrial Depot. There have been a lot of improvements made at the depot over the last few years that has rehabilitated a lot of the existing track. NAIP provides the most up-to-date representation of the depot. Esri is a close second.

A point of clarification I'll offer (and one that I wish was better understood in the OSM world), the difference between "disused" and "abandoned" is actually quite distinct. Anytime infrastructure is visible (i.e. Draper south of current terminus of TRAX), I tag this as "disused" because there is the potential to be used again at some future date. I only tag infrastructure as abandoned if a formal request has been filed and accepted by the Surface Transportation Board or in the case of non common carrier rail (like Peterson), the rail and raised grade have been removed completely and/or development has occurred over it. Hope this helps!

Thanks for the question. Here are the steps I took:
1. I created the initial rectangle for the solar panels
2. I copied and pasted the single rectangle across a group of solar panels
3. I recognized that the solar panel groups were comprised of giant patterns so after I straightened the group of panels and aligned them according to the imagery, I selected the group and used Ctrl+D to paste the groups of solar panels
4. I followed this pattern and made adjustments as necessary. Some solar panel group were smaller than the standard size so I adjusted accordingly.
5. I also used filters to remove the highways, waterways, landuse, and nodes so I could work without disruption.
6. I applied tags and uploaded to OSM.

Hope this helps! I really enjoy mapping solar power plants and even though some editors don't think it's necessary to map the individual panels, I enjoy doing it and think it adds value to the map.

Also, I'm a big fan of your blog and the work that you do. HDYC is an incredible tool! Thank you for all you're work.

Let me know if you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them and I apologize, Ich kann nicht gut auf Deutsch schreiben, sonst würde ich mit Ihnen auf Deutsch korrespondieren.

I've been waiting to add it for way to long!