Yea I see what you mean now with the path you added. Thanks for the recommendation, Ill check out that CT ECO shaded relief layer next time too.

The Tubes is the most common name for this trail, but there is technically not a "signed name" or official trail name. It is blazed green (which I think is already included in the relation). The official Shenipsit trail takes a road detour around Rt2, but the Tubes trail is the most commonly used cut through to avoid the long road detour by going under Rt2 instead of around it. I would be of the opinion of keeping it in the name, but since its not technically an official name, feel free to change the name if you think its better for another field. I think the naming convention for trails on OSM is a bit inconsistent anyways, and I previously had another user become upset when I added the official names to trails already mapped as relations. Even though there are some very popular major trail systems in NE where I have seen the trail names included under both the individual path name field and relation name, so not sure why its ok for some areas but not others. Maybe smaller CT trails arent popular enough to be named in both places?

Honestly I forget what my actual edit here was as that was 4 months ago, but I am careful with using the strava data. I only make edits if I have physically been to the location and notice that my GPS track does not match the current OSM trail. I then compare my GPS track against the strava heatmap to make sure they both average to the where the actual trail should be. Maybe I made made a minor mistake here, but I have encountered lots of trails while Im outside exploring that are completely inaccurate for long stretches. I am just trying to help fix as much as I can if I have been to a trail recently and recorded a GPS track with my Garmin (which has multi-band GPS)

After doing some reading, I see where my mistake was. I found documentation saying that the name tag "should not describe or label the feature" and should instead be the common name of the feature. So although it seemed counterproductive to me, it now makes sense that the blaze color should not be the trail name.

However, I still think there is somewhat of a grey area if the trail has an official name and if that should be used in the Name tag. The documentation also says that one source of a primary name is "The name of the feature on a sign elsewhere, such as a fingerpost". In the case of the blue Salmon River trail, there is a posted sign by the covered bridge saying the official name of the trail. On the other CFPA trails, there are also official signs with the trail name. For example, on the Shenipsit trail, there are blue sign posts and/or wooden signs with the trail name posted at almost every road crossing. Why wouldnt this be official enough to include as the Name tag based on the definition of the Name tag? This grey area could also extend to places that have official trail maps, as the trail name on the official map is the common name. This seems to be analogous to road names, where the common name tag is what is posted on the street sign and visible on official maps.

There are already many cases of the trail name being the Name tag in OSM. For example, most of the trails in the White Mountains in NH have both Relation AND trail name. This information exactly matches what is on the wooden signs at the trailheads/junctions and also matches what is on the official paper maps. The Relation info provides the detailed trail info and the Name tag provides the official, signposted (or mapped) trail name. Just like a Relation could be used for a bus route to connect Named roads, a Relation is used for a hiking route to connect Named trails.

In addition to having the correct Relation information, I think it still makes sense to have the trail name as a Name tag (ONLY if its an official named trail with signage and/or an official map). What are your thoughts on this?

Maybe, Im missing something, but why cant these trails have the name in the relation AND in the trail name? The Hop River State Park trail to the north has a Name Tag and Relation, so why cant these trails have it too? This is the official map from DEEP: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/stateparks/maps/DayPond2015rpdf.pdf

In the OSM documentation it also says:
"Here are the usual sources of primary names:
The most prominent name on a sign posted on the feature itself, especially for a feature in the built environment.
The name of the feature on a sign elsewhere, such as a fingerpost.
Common or official usage, especially for a feature in the natural environment."

The official trail name seems to satisfy the requirements to add it to the actual Name in OSM.

For the Salmon River trail, just try using any of the popular outdoor apps/websites like GaiaGPS or Strava to create a course following only the Blue trail here. I bet that you cant unless you have already been here before and know the trails. Thats because those platforms only show the name tag and not the relation info. For example, on Gaia, you can even select the individual trail, but the only information that it shows is "Unnamed Trail". Therefore in areas with a lot of trails, it is super difficult to determine which trail is blazed or official until you actually go there. So while I would still agree we could include the Relation information, it seems WAY more important to also show the official name (which often includes the color) as a Name tag in OSM. I explored a lot of these trails and it would have been much easier for me to initially plan routes on the different platforms if I knew which trails were blazed and which trails were the official trails that matched the state park maps. By naming these trails, I was hoping to help other people that have never been on these trails before, so they could plan their routes and navigate effectively and safely.

Sorry for the long rant, I guess I am just frustrated that I spent hours over the past week naming all of the trails I have explored and then you just reverted all of them today. I think we should be able to label both the Relation and the Name. It seems that more data in this case would help more users (using different platforms that may not have relation info). Let me know if you think we could do both. Id like to contribute with my local knowledge and help end users, but I dont want to waste my time if you are just going to revert all my work.

Hi Mashin, I will make sure to also add the correct data to the color tag moving forward. The main reason I am naming the trails this way is because the trail name is the only information that is visible on the numerous hiking/running/biking/outdoors platforms that utilize OSM data. For example, Strava, AllTrails, GaiaGPS, Garmin, etc only show the OSM trails and the trail name. Therefore without the trail name, it is usually more difficult to plan routes and navigate on official trails vs other mapped trails. In a lot of these state parks, the official trail name is often the color of the blaze. I have also relied on other examples where the official trail name and blaze color were both included in the trail name tag. Alternatively, I have also seen trail names just be descriptions such as "connector to XYZ road". I think having a descriptive trail name (with color, official name, or other key descriptor) greatly enhances the usability on platforms that may not show the underlying OSM data and tags. This should allow users to more easily figure out which trails are more "official" or more likely to be well traveled, and can also help users orient themselves with the actual map of the specific park or area.