Hello. Generally speaking, landcover tags like natural=wood should NOT go on ways and/or multipolygons that define cadstre or property boundaries. The "woods" don't start and end at the property boundary. If you wish to do landcover mapping, it should be defined as its own way that is algined to where the tress actually ends. Sounds reasonable? Thanks.

Mashin, can you point to any other mappers in CT or elsewhere in New England/NY that are actively removing accurate names from paths/footways to support your assertion: "quite common way of mapping hiking routes". I have been involved in multiple threads over multiple years of people complaining about your practice of removing names. I map a lot in MA/VT/NH and see no one else doing this. CT is the land of nameless trails on Strava/AllTrails/Gaia etc.

I completely understand (and technically agree with) your argument and wish we could just rely on name in the route relation. Unfortunately, OSM is far from having a perfect data model schema nor are the popular downstream data users completely adequate in their data parsing. For the sake of real-world practicality, and to adhere to the OSM tenet of "community cohesion over data perfection", I request you abandon your practice of removing valid names from path/footway ways. Thank you.

Hello. Thanks for pointing this out. I had mapped a lot of this a few years ago when I was a less experienced mapper. Some insight:

Indeed, the previous multipolygon for "Royalston State Forest" included both DCR and private CR parcels. On the MassGIS OpenSpace data for the private CRs, there is this piece of metadata: FORMAL_SITE_NAME = Royalston State Forest. I erroneously assumed the private CRs were also known as "Royalston State Forest". I didn't realize there are signs that identify the private CRs as separate things.

However, the multiple adjacent private CRs are not all known as "Beals & Fleet National Bank CR". Your recent edit labeled all as such because I previously mapped the private CRs as a single multipolgon. Before, there was a multipolgon for the DCR parcels and a single multipolygon for the private CRs. And then a bigger multipolygon that had all the above parcels named "Royalston State Forest". Could be confusing!...especially if you're a new mapper.

I just redefined things so "Royalston State Forest" is JUST the DCR owned parcels. I will go back soon to redefine the smaller private CRs and name them per what I see in MassGIS OpenSpace layer.

Please let me know if you have any on-the-ground info that may differ from the MassGIS OpenSpace data...I find it's sometimes not up-to-date. I'm happy to collaborate to ensure this beautiful part of the state is properly mapped. Cheers.

Hello. What supporting data do you have to call this road access=private? The town's tax map shows there is a recreational easement on this.

https://www.hartford-vt.org/DocumentCenter/View/8849/Tax-Map---13-PDF

Please provide some more information.

Thanks.

Hello. There is ongoing debate about the use of footway versus path. Most downstream renders will treat it the same. However, there is some local consensus that highway=path should be used for "hiking trails".

osm.wiki/Massachusetts/Conservation

Footways are used in more urban areas. (It's a British-ism).

Happy mapping...

Hello. I see you made one of the ways a cycleway, but then added a bicycle=permissive. Was that intentional? Seems "cycleway" would mean bikes are most welcome there. Thanks for mapping.

Hello. The natural=wood should not go on the way or multipolygon that defines the property boundary. Land cover mapping should be done with separate ways as the trees usually don't automatically stop at the invisible boundary. Also, the multipolygon for the state forest has cutouts for the lakes and parking lots. Presumably, this was done so trees would not render over them. This is incorrect because the water bodies and parking lots ARE part of the property so should not be "cut out". Makes sense? Thanks for mapping.