It's customary, and polite, to reach out and wait a day or two before reverting a changeset that isn't obviously vandalism. txemt seems to be engaged and very responsive. Why risk making a motivated mapper feel disenfranchised?

"Broken data can be fixed easily, but a broken community is not so easy to restore."

osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter

Hello. This is not the proper way to map in OpenStreetMap. The "name" is not for instructions like "dogs must be leashed in this area". And these are not proper "nature_reserve" as they are already within the park feature. I urge you to take a look at other similar parks to get a feel for how things are mapped in OSM. Please let me know if you have any specific questions. Thanks.

Leftover parcel boundaries before combination for overall property boundary. I just removed it. Thanks.

An oversight. Fixed. Thanks!

That level of micro-mapping is not usually done as there are trees everywhere around here. I'm not one to prevent someone from mapping what they want but perhaps there are other higher priority things that need attention? Cheers.

Hello. I see you "review requested" this changeset. Though not technically "wrong", what's the motivation for mapping individual trees? There are a LOT of them in this cemetery. It's inconsistent with mapping practice nearby. Thanks.

Hello again. My main point on the other changeset discussion is that any landuse/landcover tagging, in this case natural=wood, should NOT go on the way(s)/mulitpolgon(s) that defines the property boundary. You just switched tags on the same multipolygons. If you wish to do landcover mapping, you should create a NEW multipolgon relation for that. This new multipolgon relation can recycle the same ways from the parcel multipolygon relation. In the examples I gave earlier, notice that there are two separate multipolygon relations for those properties: 1 for cadastre, and 1 for land cover.

Makes sense?

BTW, strictly speaking, these parcels are not even all "woods". Per MassGIS data, there's a good amount of wetland areas presently not mapped.

https://massgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=4c940b24f05f4de9bdb9a467e555aaf8

IMHO, a blanket natural=wood for all those parcels would not be completely correct. It's this sort of tedium that has led me to personally deprioritize doing natural=wood land cover mapping.

Thanks.

This is a bit outdated but still a good read:
osm.wiki/Massachusetts/Conservation

And:
osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands

Generally speaking, you should NOT place a landuse/landcover tag on the same closed way or multipolygon relation that defines the cadastre or property boundary. These boundaries are virtual as they exist in a GIS tax map. (of course, sometimes the property boundary is a physical feature like a stone wall or river edge, but...) Whereas, landcover/landuse is directly related to what's on the ground. Ideally, OSM would have a different layer each for cadastre, land cover, etc but alas it's all just one jumble.

Having said that, I used to do detailed woods mapping that was bounded to the "public land" property boundary. See here for an example:
relation/11873101

I have stopped doing this because I think it's just "tagging for the renderer" because I wanted the area to show up darker green on the standard OSM carto map. Furthermore, for me, woods mapping in New England is not the highest priority as almost everything is covered with "woods" nominally.

If you felt compelled to land cover or land use map, please create a new multipolgon. This will allow you to "cut out" ponds, parking lots, swamps, etc that are not covered with "woods"...and have this "cutting out" not affect the definition of the property boundary.

Another example of this, which I did, is the Middlesex Fells:
relation/11875172

I'm happy to chat more about this or other mapping topics. I'm active on the OSM Slack channel if you're so inclined. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Happy mapping...

Hello. Per the wiki, and local mapping convention, landuse=forest is for parcels that are "Managed woodland or tree plantation maintained by human to obtain forest products". I'm fairly certain this land is not regularly cut for timber and thus this tagging does not apply. Please let me know your thoughts on this feedback. Thanks.

Hello. Can you explain what you're getting at with this changeset? This is a LOT of added nodes. Thanks.

Looks to be a mistake. Fixed. Thanks.

Hello. This parcel looks completely wooded. What's your reasoning for removing nature_reserve and switching to a recreation_ground? Thanks.

landuse=recreation_ground
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115280174

Sorry about what sounds like a bad experience. I did a bit of investigation. These tracks were part of a TIGER roads import. Looking at a 1960 USGS quad, it looks like this is the old route for the AT. However, it's right close to some other tracks that show in lidar data so I think just bad or redundant data. I deleted out:
changeset/115278986

FYI under layers in the iD editor, you can turn on the "MassGIS L3 Parcels" overlay...it's the last one. This is very helpful to show where the property boundaries are. It's just an image so if you need to query to get detailed information on ownership, you can use the MassGIS parcel viewer:
https://massgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=47689963e7bb4007961676ad9fc56ae9

Thanks for the quick response. No biggie. I just updated that track per your note. FYI, changing here will probably NOT update Google Maps' routing feature. But glad to have the added detail in OSM. Thanks.

Hello. You applied the "barrier=boulders" tag to the whole way and removed "highway=track". The interpretation of this would be the whole way is a long line of boulders. I suspect you meant to indicate that there are boulders at the beginning and/or end of the track to block vehicle access? If so, then the barrier tag would be just applied to the node at the beginning and/or end. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

Hello. It's been a minute but do you know why you tagged this way as covered?
way/181134838

I presume a mistake? Thanks.

Hello. I noticed you added natural=wood back to these large properties. This is not correct as large parts of the property are not covered in trees. If one was to add inners of the ponds, etc on this relation, then that would make the parcel definition multipolygon not correct because it would cut out areas that are part of the property.

If you wish to do land cover mapping then the best practice is to create a separate multipolygon to define this...and that can have cut-outs for the ponds and other features that are not natural=wood.

Ideally, OSM would have multiple layers built in to make this easier: one for cadastre/properties, one for landcover, etc. But alas it's just one big layer. This best practice of separate multipolygons help keeps things more correct.

I don't do much woods land cover mapping anymore myself. I found myself wanting to do it mostly to make the parcel green on the OSM standard render.

I'd like to switch it back to remove as it is more correct but will wait for your additional thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

Hello. Really great to see someone from The Trustees here on OSM mapping! I'm a big fan of your organization.

I was just recently mapping in this area a week or two ago and meticulously aligned the whole TTOR parcel to the MassGIS L3 Tax Parcel map. I noticed you moved this boundary slightly away. Was this intentional? Do you know if the MassGIS data is wrong (sometimes it is)? Or were you hoping to create a visual buffer to the private land?

I also noticed you added an additional mini-triangle for the Mill Farm private CR. This is duplicative data as there is already a way for the whole parcel.

Additionally, I noticed you (accidentally?) connected a wetland way point to a cadastre way. Please be careful.

I appreciate this is a very contentious area, and you are dealing with trespassers. But some of your changes do not conform to OSM mapping norms.

This private CR should probably never have been added to OSM in the first place. There was a MassGIS OpenSpace layer a decade ago that brought them in. I've spent a lot of time this past year cleaning this data up throughout the state. I've worked on many TTOR properties lately.

If you'd like to collaborate further, please send me a message. I have a passion to make it easier for people to find where they can get outside...and also want to make sure they know where they can NOT go too.

Thanks.

Sounds good.

FYI: there is a recently started initiative to evolve trail mapping in OSM.
osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

Unfortunately now, everything from an informal bushwhack to the Pacific Crest Trail gets rendered on most maps in the same way. Hopefully, the results of this group will be more nuanced tagging. ...and hopefully the major mapping products will change their renderings accordingly to make their maps more useful and communicative.

Happy mapping...