Thanks! Made the update to green_waste.

I did indeed—thanks for the catch.

Yeah, Prairie Ridge's side of Ridge-to-Ridge should *absolutely* be track. I think (I'm on the board of the local MTB group) I can actually get confirmation from Loveland that it was built that way specifically for truck access (and, in several sections, it utilizes an old road bed).

I'd also characterize the section of Ridge-to-Ridge on the Fort Collins/Coyote Ridge section as a path-at-track-width—an ATV could do it with caution on some bends, but a truck couldn't. I think I'd label Blue Sky TH to Soderberg TH (Inlet Bay Trail) in that category too—a lot of the features would be tough to negotiate sensibly/without serious resource damage in a jeep.

Yes, and I can think of many things that are much wider than a meter that I have happily tagged at as paths because they would not reasonably accommodate a two-track vehicle. But several sections of this trail system were converted years ago from pretty unarguably "path"-qualifying ways to the wide, level, substrate-reinforced surfaces that currently exist. They more readily meet any physical definition of "track" than many highways I think we'd both unambiguously agree should carry that tag.

Where we differ (and I want to highlight this is purely semantic—I'm not engaging in an edit war) is on defining and assessing the relevance of a way's "functional" ur-state. For me, the currently constructed paths were absolutely built with maintenance vehicles in mind, and those vehicles do occasionally use them. For you, the fact that they're intended for public recreation "by people on foot, bicycle or horse" makes them paths (even though, as I stated above I think access-tagging relays this just as well).

The fact that we are having this disagreement suggests to me that "functional classification" is not an objectively sound way to delineate between highway types.

Furthermore, the Tag:highway=track discussion page seems to lean away from using highway=path for "Recreational hiking trails which are wide enough to carry vehicles (though vehicle access is usually forbidden). They provide access to the land, and they are wider than paths, and may be well constructed, but they are not (currently) open for vehicles."

osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrack

I visit this area regularly as well, and I have also, in fact, also reviewed the wikis.

"Things that all agree on" at osm.wiki/Path_controversy literally says "highway=track Implies that it's wide enough for a small motorcar to drive on, even if it's illegal."

It also makes the first definition of highway=path "1. Something not wide enough for four wheeled vehicles" before secondarily suggesting that something closed to motor vehicles might also qualify.

'These ways do not function to provide access to agricultural or forest lands, and hence, are not "tracks."'

Funny, that's exactly how I use them. Good thing I've got you around to tell me otherwise.

I can see this distinction being meaningful for paved roadways, but it's inappropriate to shoehorn it onto trails/tracks/off-road ways. The information arbitrarily dubbed "functional classification" is more accurately and easily rendered with access tags, and as someone who actually uses this data, it's far more important to know the physical condition than what the "function" (whatever that means) of the trail is.

Also, "as they have been for many years" is not a compelling argument for anything, except perhaps the OSM community's insularity and unwillingness to change. Like the overwhelming majority of people, I am not on the mailing list, so please consider documenting these discussions in the OSM wiki instead.

The heart of my complaint is that Horsetooth isn't a lake, it's a reservoir. While this seems pedantic, and many reservoirs are referred to as lakes, no one locally (or anywhere, to my knowledge) refers to it by that term. "Reservoir Access Trail" would make much more sense, though my inclination is to defer to the source.

But genuine thanks for the heads-up on source:url. iD doesn't surface that option under the "source" dropdown when saving a changeset, and I never thought to look it up. While the usage seems pretty self-explanatory, the only mention I can find in the wiki is a talk page: osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/changeset_tags#source:url.3D.2A Is there more thorough documentation somewhere else?

Thanks again!

Feel free to drop me a line about this if you disagree or have additional questions. I do have reasonably thorough on the ground knowledge of the area.

Yes—I should have specified visibility on Strava's map. The issue in part seems to be that they still render closed loops as areas, even with explicit "area=no" tagging. Though the previous edit of this particular closed loop caused it to disappear from the Strava map entirely—possibly related to the golf course overlapping it.