I can't verify the name tag, as I don't remember if the named business is still at that location, or has moved.

I've deleted this node, as I'm familiar with this intersection, and there is nothing here that I can see this node reasonably representing. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I say impossible river crossings, impossible at present, but I am only temporarily visiting town. It may be more possible at other times. I am still convinced that this trail, if it exists at all, was so inaccurately mapped that deletion was the only sensible thing to do.

This edit adds a `bicycle=no` tag to the Songdai Expressway, but does not say what this is based on. Is it based on local signage, an assumption, or something else?

Thank you very much for doing this SomeoneElse. I fully support reverting the changesets.

I've added a note, asking about the addition of the `access=no` tag added to the section of Vanness Ave with this edit. If you can provide more info could you please do so on the note:

note/1944032

I hope to hear from you. Thanks!

weird. This is tagged as part of #osmnepal, but is far from Nepal.

In reality the sections of road that are inaccessible to the public are likely to be much longer than this, as border areas are sensitive military areas, with restricted access to the public. But with these tags, I hope that routers will not try to send people across closed crossings.

Ok, thanks.

I don't think there's any rule against mapping two far flung locations, but it does make it harder for other mappers to know the location of your edits. I've seen very experienced editors doing it, but I don't think it's a good idea. In this case I was looking at some changes in Canada, and was trying to figure out if this edit could have affected a Canadian river. There are tools that could have given more more accurate info about what was edited, but they are time consuming to use.

Thanks for your quick reply. Maybe I shouldn't write so much about my opinion. You really didn't do anything wrong.

Is this an automated edit? If so was it discussed?

This edit changed the `name:bo` tag from `ཉང་ཆུ,` to `z=མྱང་ཆུ`. Based on my very basic knowledge of Tibetan writing, the typo, and some basic googleing. Please let me know if you think I've made a mistake. Here's the link to my edit: changeset/71837856

Unfortunately you have failed to follow these instructions, and while some edits have just added Hindi in the default `name` tag, others have replaced existing name tags with Hindi ones.

I'm not sure that adding description or advice into a name tag is a good idea. It's not got "(private)" in its name, and it shouldn't really be in the name tag either.

Adding Westwind to the map is a good idea, unfortunately tourism=camp is not the right tag for it. If the entirety of it is tagged this way it means you could camp anywhere within Westwind. That is not the case. It could also attract people to the area, as most campgrounds are the sort of places you can just show up to, and the `access=private` tag may not be presented to users. Indeed it wasn't with the default rendering, I don't think many apps or renderings would present access restrictions on a campground in a meaningful way.

The `leisure=summer_camp` rendering the most accurate one that I know, and I see you have that on already, so I left that in place. It may not be rendered, at least when I looked into it a few years back it wasn't rendered. But it's better to have accurate info that is not presented to the user, than incorrect/misleading data that is presented to the user.

If I'd missed the private tag on any roads in Westwind then it would be good to add them, but I thought I got them all.

That sounds entirely reasonable to me.

It's a wonderful place, isn't it?

I'd call it as overzealous the first time he deleted all the details, but then he did it again after I'd explained it all to him. He gave it about 9 months, and tried again.

Irrespective of how we characteristic the changeset it negatively impacted the map, and reverting it took up my time.

Matt, it's probably worth noting that in the 3 months since you've deleted the road and the trails from the land you manage, the road, and most of the trail from God's Thumb have been added back (with this changeset: changeset/71321675) based on Strava Heatmap data. When they were added back they were no longer tagged as private.

By deleting them all you ended up doing is hiding the fact that access is private.

I reverted your edits (again), so the road and the trails are once again accurately tagged as private. If you continue to delete these trails they are just going to be added back, and it is likely that they will not be as well tagged as they are now, that means that they will look like they are public.

Let me remind you that access to these this road and those trails is private, the knowledge of the existence of them is not private.

I don't want to step on your toes, but I did make an edit that may have negatively impacted your edit. I just reverted a couple of changesets that I view as vandalism (changeset/68196326 and changeset/68196294). The changesets deleted a bunch of trails and one 4x4 track. This edit by you replaced one trail and extended a residential rd in the place of the 4x4 track.

I decided it'd be better to maintain the history of the original ways, rather than keep your ways. I've compared the ways with the Strava Imagery, and it looks good to me.

I wanted to give you a heads-up, in case you'd like to review the area. It'd also be nice to have other editors know about the history of vandalism in the area, and keep a bit of an eye out.

I think it's worth pointing out that these trails were already tagged as private, and that this has been explained to Matt previously (changeset/52643870). In fact the only contributions from this editor have been to delete features from this part of the map.

With knowledge of this history I can only view this as vandalism of the map.

I have reverted the two vandalizing changesets.