I appreciate the difficulty of large polygons. However, I disagree it's "necessary". Ideally, OSM would have layers where the parcel boundaries couldn't "talk" to the land cover layer. But it doesn't, so we have to manually enforce some mapping best practices. Philosophically, where the trees end and a parcel boundary demarcation has nothing to do with each other. What sometimes happens is a future mapper will want to adjust the trees but they inadvertently also adjust the parcel boundary because of these connections

Please stop attaching natural=wood to existing parcel boundary ways. This is an incorrect way of doing landcover mapping and creates headaches. I reached out previously in another changeset and have yet to hear back. Please respond. Thanks.

Hello. Why are you aligning natural=wood to cadastre boundaries e.g. the closed way that indicates the State Forest? The "woods" do not begin/start at parcel boundaries. It creates lots of headaches.

I think the "access=no" was added by mistake? Else, that overrides the bicycle=yes, etc.

Good to see you back on here. I see you had review requested checked. The new way you added was unconnected to at one end, and where it intersected another existing way, it didn't connect there also. No biggie. Cheers.

Hello. I see you've created some new "paths" that are unconnected to other ways. I see some evidence on lidar, but there is nothing on heatmap. It's highly unusual for unconnected ways to exist in the middle of the forest. Do you have any additional data to support the creation of these paths in OSM? e.g. that they are presently navigable or even apparent in-person. It's likely just old skid trails that are probably very overgrown. Thanks.

Hello. I just went ahead and reverted this changeset. I inspected the area and all those raw points and tracks are very non-standard way of doing this. I usually wait for a response to not make people feel disenfranchised...but I think there a clearly much better ways to accomplish what you're trying to do.

changeset/146012609

Again, I (and I'm sure others) are very happy to assist. Please be in touch.

Cheers.

Looks like you're new to OSM so let me say: welcome!

Generally speaking, we do not upload raw GPS/GPX data without further smoothing as it looks like what you did. Uploading multiple single points is not really "correct". Furthermore, the tagging on these, and the other ways you added, does not conform to standard practice per the OSM wiki and local mapping norms. I'd recommend reverting this whole changeset. (I can help with that if you like).

This area already has a lot trails mapped. Looking at Strava Heatmap data and lidar, it DOES look like many existing mapped trails can be substantially improved. I think referencing these data sources will be much more fruitful than a single GPS trace. Strava data has many multiple traces aggregated so the "average" path is easier to discern.

I'm an experienced mapper and happy to collaborate with you on the mission of your Wayfinding Master Plan. Cheers.

I retraced this with lidar. Should be really accurate now. Cheers.

Thanks for the note. I was curious and looked at this region on lidar. I think it's just bad data from the original import. I trimmed significantly to just what I think is the driveway (however, I have no local knowledge). Cheers.

Hello. I'm mapping more in Death Valley lately. I'm curious about your switch from track to highway=unclassified on the Saline Valley Road. Are there any OSM Death Valley working group conventions or something like that?

On the NPS AGOL Roads dataset, Saline Valley Road, and roads around it like Hunter Mountain Road, have a NPS road class (RDCLASS) of 4WD. I propose that RDCLASS=4WD maps to highway=track in OSM and the NPS RDCLASS=local maps to highway=unclassified (like Racetrack Valley Road) for consistency. Thoughts on any of this? Thanks!

(BTW, I'm active on the OSM Slack if you're inclined to collab there.)

You're welcome. And some more detail: I think they've always been service, and I recently asked the community on Slack, and a few experienced mappers confirmed. That's what I meant by "discussion". Thanks.

Per typical OSM mapping norms, "roads" inside cemeteries should be mapped as "service" as they are not part of the regular road network. If you disagree, please provide more information to support your recent change. There has been OSM community discussion on this topic recently. Thanks.

Per typical OSM mapping norms, "roads" inside cemeteries should be mapped as "service" as they are not part of the regular road network. If you disagree, please provide more information to support your recent change. There has been OSM community discussion on this topic recently. Thanks.

Hello. Cemetary "streets" are not part of the regular municipal road network so I don't think changing them from highway=service is appropriate. This could cause mapping routers to send people through the cemetery. Please provide your reasoning for making this change after reviewing the wiki guidance. Thanks.

highway=service

BTW, are you a Town of Concord employee? Not that it matters too much but I'm curious. Thanks.

Sorry...I meant to say "path" for the original tag....though track has been used too in the past too looking at the way history.

OSM is an international project with tagging semantics and mapping norms that don't always comport with local/national nomenclature/practice. Per wiki, a highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads that are generally "considered usable by motor cars".
highway=unclassified?uselang=en

Personally knowing the road and knowing the town doesn't actively maintain it for cars, I think the original highway=track is a better tag for the unpaved portion of Estabrook Road.
highway=track

There are also no provisions in the decision explicitly saying cars are ok so I wonder why the staus quo tagging, sans a motor_vehicle=yes, was changed.

Tagging choices have downstream consequences. Do you want mapping routers to be actively routing people in cars down Estabrook?

Right. You didn't. I was thinking more about a few of your other changesets and should've commented there.

I'm not sure what you mean by that distinction. Humans are driving the farm field equipment, no? Regardless, we're documenting what we see on the ground...and it looks like "track" per the wiki: "track roads are mostly used for agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, and similar activities on open land."
highway=track

I think this track and others like it are worth mapping (they were mapped):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4303503,-71.3331149,3a,75y,226.62h,67.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so16C9v0shH1J-HZh5LbrvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu