Please listen to this presentation from a Canyonlands ranger and reconsider if everything needs to become a "trail" in OSM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXXGkBVJK-o&t=19s

I can not see much evidence on imagery. I personally do not add trails that I can't see on imagery and/or haven't hiked myself firsthand and/or haven't seen on an official map from the land manager.

Hello. Not seeing the toilets on the ground the toilets you have marked in front of the pump house. Was there a portable toilet here before? Or is this in the wrong location? Thanks.

Thanks for the catch. An inadvertent change. Fixed. Unfortunately, there are a lot of parcels with these types of tags from a MassGIS import a decade ago. Have been slowly cleaning it up.

osm.wiki/MassGIS_Import_Tag_Cleanup_2013

Hello. I saw you requested a review. Looks fine to me!

BTW, there is an active local mapping community on Slack if you care to join in. Happy mapping! https://slack.openstreetmap.us/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114489692

...furthermore, some of the trail segments you deleted are clearly on town-owned land. I look forward to hearing a response.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114502972

I recommend putting notes on the ways that are aligned to the stone walls. If L3 parcels is wrong, some future well-intentioned mapper will likely repeat. I think most people don't bother to check the history.

I'm curious: how do you know the L3 is wrong (if it is) and the stone wall is the official boundary? Is it on the parcel map? Thanks.

Hello. I realize this is an old changest but still wanted to reach out. I notice you changed "leisure=nature_reserve" to landuse=recreation_ground". Per the wiki, heavily wooded areas are generally not recreation_ground. They usually have playing fields, etc.

In my experience mapping in MA, ~urban "recreation_ground" are being retagged with just park. And conservation properties almost always get nature_reserve unless it's a manicured park.

landuse=recreation_ground

osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands

osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Park_boundary

I'm curious about your thoughts on this. Happy mapping!

Hello. This changeset covers a very large geographical area and makes it difficult to provide feedback if there is a disagreement. Please endeavor to create smaller changesets in the future. Thanks.

opps. Hit enter too quick.

...it's hard enough getting agreement on these things locally. You should see some of the discussions with mappers globally! I'm amazed OSM has gotten as far as it has.

Anyways, thanks for the acquiescence. I do feel "track" is more consistent with other similar wide paths regionally so changed it.

For me: "wide enough for 4WD truck" and "purposefully intended vehicle access from regular roads (via those swing gates)" are the two qualifying criteria consistent with the wiki.

BTW, I'm active on the OSM Slack instance. Always happy to meet and collaborate with other local mappers...especially those interested in adding details to our public lands. Cheers.

https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Thanks for the response.

Yeah, if you get into OSM more, you'll be amazed at the level of back-and-forth there are on these types of things. It's hard e

There exist default access restrictions:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_States_of_America

The wiki is sometimes a bit of a hot mess. IMHO, in the area you'll generally find:

"hiking" trails, like those at Walden get a "highway=path". If bicycles are not allowed, then a "bicycle=no" is added. For extra credit you could add a "horse=no" too but I don't see too many people trying to ride horses there. A "foot=yes" is redundant.

I think what you did isn't "wrong" per se, it's just stylistically inconsistent with the tagging norms in the region. Usually, an "access=no" is used in the relatively rare cases where the general public is not allowed on a "path". Furthermore, the OSM Carto render (default OSM map) and other popular maps like AllTrails/Gaia/etc render the line differently than the other paths right next to it with "access=no". Note that you did not add an "access=no" to this adjoining way and it looks different on the map:
way/55200483

Thanks.

BTW, I'm active on the OSM Slack. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ Always happy to meet and collaborate with other local mappers, especially those interested in adding details to our public lands.

Hello. What was the reason for tagging "access=no" on some of the trails near Goose Pond? They appear as open trails on the DCR map. Was this done by mistake? Seems like you were trying to indicate bicycles are not allowed. But an "access=no" means no one is allowed on these trails. Was this your intention? Thanks.

Hello. Looks like you're trying to indicate that trail access from a point onwards will change? Thanks for updating the map. However, I don't think this is the best way to indicate this change. Your note will not render with the standard map.

You could break the trail here and change the segment to "access=private" or whatever is appropriate. I'm not directly familiar with this area.

Another way to add a note like this is on the main website. You can drop a general note to fix up later...or for someone else to update.

osm.wiki/Notes

I'm active on the OSM Slack if you wanted to chat further. Happy mapping...

Hi Tom. You changed the bit of trail that traverses private land to Snake Hill Rd as "access=private". Last time I was there, I don't recall seeing any NO TRESPASSING signs or anything that prevents general public access. Per the wiki, "access=private" is when "Access is only with permission on an individual basis". I think "access=permissive" or "access=yes" is the appropriate tag here unless there has been a recent change from the landowner.

Note, "access=private" has nothing to do with ownership.

access=private

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks.

Hello. I noticed you've been converting "tracks" to "paths" in a few locations. Have you familiarized yourself with the OSM track wiki page before doing this?

highway=track

Being part of the "Belmont Street listing" is not a necessary criteria for a way to qualify as a "track".

Like many things in OSM, there is a lot of room for interpretation. For me what makes it a track is:

- it is very wide
- 4WD vehicles could traverse it now (and definitely have in the past)
- there is a wide "vehicle style" swing gate near the intersection with Pleasant St which suggests occasional truck access by the town for maintenance of fire protection. Else, much cheaper large stones could have been placed to prevent vehicle access.

Please review the wiki and let me know if your mind has changed. Thanks.

"Route 17" is on street signs in the area. By the "For disputed areas, please use the name as displayed on, e.g., street signs for the name tag" from OSM "Name" wiki page, the road does have a "name".

Hello. Thanks for mapping in OSM. I further spruced up this area and refined the tagging you did on Whitney Hill Park. It's not really a "forest" as OSM defines it. Tagging in OSM can often be unintuitive. I adjusted to better match similar parcels nearby in the region. Happy mapping...

FYI: I removed private CR altogether. IMHO, these should have never been added in the first place. They were included on the MassGIS OpenSpace import from a decade ago. They cause confusion as they are often mapped like "public lands".

That being said, the trails here appear to be heavily used (from Strava heatmap data). Do you know if the landowner allowed the use of the trails? There may be an informal "permissive" use of the trails like I know in other areas adjacent to public conservation parcels. If so, this would warrant keeping them mapped in OSM. Thanks.

Hello. It looks like on this changeset part of the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge was renamed "Callewaert-Agabedis National Wildlife Refuge". I can't find any references to this name anywhere. Do you have any web links to support this name change? Thanks.

Hello. FYI this parcel is actually owned by the town. There was a couple of other parcels nearby with the same name/status according to MassGIS OpenSpace. I combined, retagged, and stripped out the MassGIS tags.

MassGIS OpenSpace has this area as "Pheasant Brook" but I've seen on a town map that has it as "Butterfield Conservation Area. https://www.lexingtonma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif7101/f/uploads/2020_across_brochure_20-08._final-2-fullsizemap.pdf

I kept it as the former. But LMK know if you know any better. Cheers.