IMHO, DEM alone is not sufficient...especially to call something a "track". I could barely get through there pushing my bike. I've poured over a lot of DEM in the GMNF and there are many old "tracks" from many decades ago that are very grown over....never would you think you could get a vehicle through there... (some interesting stuff near MacIntyre for instance).

Calling the very overgrown "path" from Mt. Snow to Somerset Reservoir a "track" is quite a stretch IMHO. I was on this last summer. Was on my gravel bike and definitely had to hike-a-bike this. Have you been recently?

I only continue to push this "for fun", not that I care all that much but. I'd rather focus on the many "public parcels" yet to be fully mapped in OSM for instance.

I think there is sometimes a tagging semantics nihilism that occurs with such debates...edge cases and a desire to be completely logically self-consistent results in tagging that is unintuitive. Yes, of course, it's not just strictly residents that can traverse "access=private", but it's VERY commonly understood that non-residents like those you pointed out can access the driveway for a relatively narrow set of purposes: walk up drive to return that lost dog? That's ok. Have a party in a stranger's driveway with 10 of your friends? Not so much.

To make a ridiculous counter-argument: it's generally OK to make a "U" turn by briefly turning into someone's driveway and backing up...especially in a rural area. As the driver wasn't driving the 100m up the driveway to the "destination" "access=destination" does not properly capture all the legal/socially acceptable ways that the driveway can be used.

Why can't "access=private" just be how it's presently defined in the wiki: "not to be used by the general public". A friend or delivery person is not "the general public". Granted, this is a bit ambiguous. But I'd argue for a project like OSM, it's better to have simpler, more intuitive user-friendly tagging than obtuse alternatives that are more "technically correct" but require researching threads on Slack to understand. Anyways...thanks for the discussion.

When you say "documentation", presumably you're not talking about the "access" wiki page. Looking at "destination": "Note that "access only for residents" is private".

There is not much guidance here:
access=destination

I can appreciate the wiki does not always reflect the latest community senmtiment. But IMHO, wiki documentation should be updated before mass changes like this. Especially as, in my experience, all elements like this I run into are basically 100% access=private.

Hello. What's the justification for converting driveways to access=desitnation? Are these not usually access=private for residential properties?

My point with the Acton trails reference was just another datapoint for a town that is using a custom Mapbox implementation.

My Mapbox skills are very low, but here is a very quick edit of the default Mapbox Outdoors map to show the paths with pistes to look like the paths without pistes.
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/tompar/ckzexdhzf000115k8brwgwvcq.html?title=view&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoidG9tcGFyIiwiYSI6ImNraGN5bmg0NTAxaW4yc29yYWVlZThzMjQifQ.6A4YSe1Bv7aYmgBQe2s5lA&zoomwheel=true&fresh=true#16.29/42.552461/-71.342864

This is to just further drive my main point that valid OSM data should not be deleted because it doesn't suit your render needs. The render can/should be altered to suit your specific needs.

There is a way in Mapbox to hide the pistes format (by making the conditional formatting transparent) and just have it show up as a "path"...or whatever. It requires getting a bit more into the guts of the code...but it seems doable on my sample custom Mapbox map.

Your explanation remains about the render, and not about the validity of the tagging. I'm not going to continue to push this...BUT, someone took the time to add those tags, they are valid tags, and you unilaterally removed them for your specific map publishing purposes without previous discussion.

There is an online community of OSM mappers that you can leverage. In the future, I encourage you to reach out before making such mass edits...especially with valid tagging.

BTW, Acton uses Mapbox too for their town trails:
https://trails.actonma.gov/ Perhaps they have some additional insight as to how they navigate shaping OSM data to their specific publishing needs.

I appreciate your time volunteering for the trails committee. We all want the same thing: accurate maps for the public. Please keep in mind your organization is not the only user of this data. Thanks.

Please consider that your issue is with the map render and not the validity of the tagging. Which mapping products are you referring to? I bet there's a map out there that renders "horse=yes" trails differently too.

Can you explain how the nordic ski tagging is inaccurate?

Hello. This is not a valid edit. The "name" field should not be used as a composite of the common name and MIT building number. Please provide further justification why you think the building reference # should be in there. Thanks.

Hello. Why are you removing these nordic skiing tags? I personally wouldn't add them to such trails...but they are not "wrong". Please provide an explanation. Thanks.

I think the mapper was saying the wooded area as a whole is known as "Oleo Woods"...compared to the municipal-owned parcel "Oleo Woods Open Space". Perhaps confusing so good you removed it.

FYI: I noticed the ways for "Oleo Woods Open Space" and adjacent "Woodman Open Space" were not aligned to the latest MassGIS parcel data so I just realigned.

Are you with the city? Should the two areas still be drawn as separate? Or is the conservation committee (or whomever) planning to "combine" the parcels and rename?

Hello. Not quite sure what's going on here with this edit, but the map now shows a "bridge" between Plymouth and Provincetown. What was the reason for this changeset? Thanks.

Hello. Please consider using the tag "official_name" instead for this edit. I believe the original name before your edit is more appropriate per the spirit of "name" in wiki: name=*.

On the website https://www.massaudubon.org/get-outdoors/wildlife-sanctuaries/drumlin-farm "Drumlin Farm Wildlife Sanctuary " is used...and I believe signage on the property uses this too without "Mass Audubon" prefix.

Are you planning to prepend all properties with "Mass Audubon"?

Also, was there a reason for removing the wikipedia/wikidata tags?

Thanks and happy mapping...

Right. "park", in OSM speak, is more of an urban park like Boston Common.

OSM tagging has a long history, influenced by its British origins, and is messy and not always semantically self-consistent. In the US, as you know, was have quite the diverse array of "public lands": from city parks, to "private" non-profit land-trust conservation land in Lincoln, to Audubon, to state forests, etc. There has yet to be a fully articulated "right" way of tagging "public lands" in the US.

Here is a start:
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Park_boundary

In New England, most non-manicured "parks" are tagged with boundary=protected_area and leisure=nature_reserve.

I updated Cold Spring park. I noticed its boundary was a bit out of alignment compared to the MassGIS parcel data.

In any event, a "natural=wood" should not be applied to the geometry that is defining the cadastre. "Land cover" should get its own geometry...and I've mostly stopped doing woods land cover in MA because almost everything is covered with trees anyways!

Check out parks/conservation land elsewhere in Belmont/Linclon/Concord etc for some examples. I've "been" just about everywhere in the state trying to make this all more consistent. It's an exercise in OCD compulsion...however I've discovered so many new places through my mapping to visit in "real life". It's been very satisfying.

To learn more, I recommend perusing the OSM wiki. Just keep in mind it's not curated by one person or formal committee, so you'll see some inconstancies stemming from this being an international project of volunteers with different viewpoints on how things are done in their part of the world.

I'm happy to chat more too. I'm active on the OSM Slack instance.

Happy mapping.

Hello. Please refer to my email on the other changeset. The same feedback applies to this changeset.

Hello. Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please explain why you removed "park" from a couple of parcels and added "natural=wood".

Generally speaking, land cover tagging should not go on the same ways that are used to define a parcel boundary.

These parks do need some tagging clean up, but your changes IMHO are not correct. Please let me know your thoughts based on this feedback. Thanks.

Congrats!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116475694

Welcome Mass Audubon! I've edited many of your properties throughout the state. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers.

Hello. Thanks for the contribution. In the future, please consider creating multiple changesets over a much smaller geographic area. It makes it easier to review and provide feedback if needed. Happy mapping...

Hello. Thanks for the contribution. Please consider in the future creating multiple changesets over a smaller geographic area. It makes it easier to review and provide feedback if needed. Happy mapping...