@dkwolf, thanks for your message. I'll reply here just to keep communication in one place:

> I do not have any recollection of that boundary. Please edit if you see fit. While addressing boundaries of nature preserves, I used both the usgs and granit and town gis to make any boundary changes.

I've done some investigating by consulting local expert on perambulation Kurt Gotthardt. The cause is quite fascinating and we were both right in a way.

The stone monument is the true 4 corners. As an artificial monument it controls over the original paper description of length and bearings. However, the 1927 USGS topo map used an approximate location for the corner and that error has propagated since to be in OSM, GRANIT, Google Maps, and even local town GIS systems. On USGS maps through 1996, there are markers for monuments. You will notice this corner lacks a monument and is therefore approximate.

I will fix this specific instance and also likely write a blog post about this surprising finding.

It appears that such errors might be widespread, and it would be interesting to consider ways to know whether a boundary node is approximate or monumented in OSM.

Who knew no one knew!

I believe this changeset moved the location of a history boundary stone to the actual junction of the 4 towns rather than the true inaccurate location of the stone. @dkwolf any recollection here?

Position prior to this changeset:
node/9012708145/history/1

Also stumbled upon this "solar" node and was a bit confused as to what it was supposed to indicate.

I think @YASHPERDDD might have been confused about the purpose of OSM and was using to take notes on potential installation sites for Hanover Solar... hmm.

Forgot to add my survey to the source metadata https://www.strava.com/activities/9406565185

Ah cool. I've enable the notes viewing in the iD editor for the future.

Thanks @CurlingMan13! I'm not sure what notes you are referring to. No objection on my end, just not sure where the notes are?

Bravo! The Green Line Extension Community Path is open!

forgot to link source https://www.strava.com/activities/8242653269

Changed in 115397610, added operator=Farmer's Union Ditch Company and removed name.

Yes, I added access=private due to the large number of no tresspassing signs. The signs do say "Farmer's Union Ditch Company", but I guess that is different than a name for the way. Looking at name=*, I see "do not use name=* if the feature is unnamed in the real world." So will remove. Could also add noname=yes, but I haven't done sufficient research to know that there isn't actually an official name somewhere, although I haven't seen a true name on the ground.

I think access=private is more appropriate than access=no for Eldorado’s Community Preserve trails to signify that they are for use by Eldorado residents and accompanied guests only.

Haha. I think I did, but sadly it doesn't show up on the default rendering. node/8847049892

I assumed it wasn't attached to the bedrock, so I labeled it natural=stone. But honestly I have no idea! The Hanover Trails Challenge did call it a "glacial erratic".

Cool thanks for getting back to me. I made the changes in changeset/109992036#map=16/43.7436/-72.1481

If useful, there are some photos of this area on my related Strava activity https://www.strava.com/activities/5492139286

Also large parts of Old Tote Road are singletrack at this point, so though decision whether to consider it a track or path.

I added alt_name=Harris Trial to Plumber Hill Road in changeset/109989815. If I remember from my recent visit there, there wasn't any signage for "Plumber Hill Road", just signs for "Harris Trail", so perhaps "Harris Trail" should be the primary name for way/963743937?

I had read that the first part of the track road here was Plumber Hill Road, but I didn't know where this historical road ended! Thanks for figuring that out.

I noticed the large bounding box as well. Would it be best to make every tag edit as a separate changeset to keep the bounding boxes small?

Looking at this changeset at https://osmcha.org/changesets/104662307/, notice the change to way/366121651 ((formerly) Nauset Light Beach Road).

This changeset adds highway=path to this way causing it to appear on places like openstreetmap.org or MapBox as an actual path, even though it no longer exists because of erosion. I think the correct tagging is to keep only the demolished:highway tag and only to add highway=path if the old road is currently used as a path.

For way way/835630677, this changeset made the path into a track. Explored this on my bike yesterday. It is an overgrown path, definitely not a track. Updated in https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=105255194

Looking at this changeset at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=104662307, this changeset made the entire Former Little Creek Road into a footpath that is visible on OSM and other frontends. Only the northwestern part of this trail is used as a trail (as seen on Strava heatmap). Absent any objections, I will update this.

Just biked around here this weekend https://www.strava.com/activities/4708358422. Trails in this area weren't on my OSM-derived maps. Amazing to see that you added these trails just two days ago!

Can't wait for the SRT to be completed in this section. Currently the information board map indicates the trail was constructed in 2018. But they made that map before completing construction and looks like they must have hit a snag, since it's overgrown single track at best.