RideAndDriveTrails,

I wanted to further flag the comment on changeset 138580077 with this zero-hour block, which is meant to be a warning that you’ve crossed the line. In said changeset you’ve created a bridle route. This is not how a bridle (horse) route should be created. Adding every horse-related path to a relation and calling it a route so that it shows up on the Waymarked trails is tagging for the renderer and generally disruptive to other mappers and the database. The route relation is for tagging a signed, designated end-to-end route such as this MTB route.

Tagging routes the way you are doing is not consistent with the community guidance documented in the wiki. Please the remove this an any route you’ve mapped this way lest the DWG have to revert all of this work.

Additionally, it is improper and confusing to use the tag horse=designated on trails that do not have a sign designating them specifically as horse trails. Have you visited all 500 trails in this changeset here? I have and I can tell you that there is not a single sign indicating that any trail is a horse trail out there. Baltimore City DPW does not generally view the watersheds as recreational areas and signage is minimal on the property. They do have a few designated, signed mountain bike routes however, one of which is linked above. The trails/tracks in those routes are the only ones that could be considered bicycle=designated. Otherwise, horse=yes is sufficient as horses are indeed allowed.

You seem to be passionate about horse access mapping. That’s great–we appreciate passionate mappers. However, please do not bend or break the norms of OSM because a suitable horse access map does not exist.

Thanks for your understanding,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group