Thanks again. It is the bit East of 85 that is the issue for this local data user.

Thanks. I was contacted by a local resident who indicated that the parts inside the city are both CR 14 1/2 and 14th Street. I am not personally familiar with Fort Lupton, but in other parts of Colorado this isn't unusual, and prior to the edits in September, it did have a ref=CR 14 1/2 tag.

Somehow way/1426397619 is not a member of a relation for CR 14 1/2, and I think it should be (SD Mapman removed the ref tag so now there is no indication in OSM that this is part of that county rounte).

Again, regarding the access tag: the way you have tagged this trail (access=discouraged) may be interpreted as anyone can use this trail with any mode of travel, but it is "discouraged." This could mean that someone could legally ride a horse on this trail, or ride an ebike, or even a motorcycle, better to not have the access tag, but have bicycle=discouraged and foot=discouraged.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164735291

Also, you disconnected the trail from the larger trail & road network (prior to your edit it was connected). Connectivity is important for routing.

The name tag is for the name only, not information as to the status of the trail, e.g. "outdated"

Super strange that there is no Strava heat even though all of the nearby trails do have heat. Ok, so the trail exists, but without heat, or it being visible in imagery we can't be sure this location is accurate. We can't rely on the data from your agency as it has been shown to have many errors. The fixme tag should remain.

It depends on what the on the ground situation is that we are trying to depict.

I am assuming, based upon your use of access=private, that while the general public is no longer legally allowed to use the trail, there are some people that are, e.g. members of a private country club, a resident of a homeowner’s association, or park rangers. If this is the case, the manner in which the trail is now mapped is correct (with the exception of the bicycle=permission, and foot=permissive tags). If on the other hand, the trail is closed to everyone but still physically exists, use access=no, leave it connected to the rest of the network, and remove the specific access tags, e.g. bicycle=permissive. Finally, if the trail no longer physically exists to one degree or another you can use the lifecycle tagging (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix), e.g. disused:highway=path the appropriate access tagging, probably access=no, and leave connected. In this final case, you could simply delete the trail, but you risk some other mapper adding it back in if it still appears in other sources, such as imagery, the Strava Heatmap, or the USGS 3D Elevation Program data. There are not many cases where one would disconnect a trail from the larger network of trails and roads.

Also, on the private part of the Preserve Connector, you tagged it as access=private, bicycle=designated, foot=designated. Some data consumers would interpret this to mean that that all access is private except bicycle and foot which are "designated", which I don't think is what you intended.

Hi, thanks for the edits! One bit of feedback is that you left the north end of the preserve connector dangling, i.e., not connected to anything. I have fixed that. Also, the south end of the private part of the preserve connector is dangling as well, and I will fix that.

You also deleted trails that really do exist!!!!

please don't add fords without actual knowledge of the situation. Some of those that you added are bridges.

Some of those features that you edited had been aligned to Strava, and it looks like you actually made them worse.

@Spaghetti_Monster 's method of mapping is correct in this case. Areas that have holes, such as the fairway in this case, must be mapped as multipolygon relations. See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon. Also, comments like "I fight the good fight" are not helpful. Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

It seems that Blixt99 may not be familiar with the concept of multipolygons in OSM, or is mapping to fit a particular app, rather than by general OSM practices.

Thanks for adding all of these great tree polygons! Just a little request, could you avoid gluing/snapping these to trails? It makes refining the position of the trail a little more difficult? Also, what is "semi_evergreen"?

Hey Mara, the name tag is for the name only, not for access information such as "Closed to Bikes"

Not sure whether these fairways encircle the greens or not, but in OSM multipolygons are areas, see osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Thanks for your complement. I am glad that the work on the trails in the park is appreciated. Are you local to this area? I have hiked/ran almost all of the trails on the west side of the park (there are a few very remote ones up north that I haven't gotten too yet). I am currently working on updating access tags on the trails and setting informal=* and operator=* Regarding rivers/streams, sometimes you can use the USGS 3DEP data to accuractly locate them, this also can work for some trails.

Thanks for your nice reply. Sorry if I was snarky. Thanks for all of your other good edits.