Don't hesitate to reach out if you have other questions. You can contact me through messages here or on the OSM-US Slack (where myself and a few thousand other mappers coordinate our efforts): https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/

If you join the Slack, check out the #local-new-york, #protected-lands, and #forest-mapping channels as they may be of interest to you.

Cheers!
Adam

Hi Steve, thanks for the quick reply. Relation 18132478 is an appropriate treatment. You'll want to add the ponds and any other no-tree areas as "inner" elements to the natural=wood multipolygon, but you are on the right track. :-)

`natural=wood` isn't an appropriate tag for the boundary=protected_area object itself as the entire area is not woods. There are also marshes and ponds enclosed. Additionally, the area of trees extends beyond the boundary and this larger area is what could have natural=wood applied rather than the boundary line itself.

`natural=wood` isn't an appropriate tag for the boundary=protected_area object itself as the entire area is not woods. There are also marshes and ponds enclosed. Additionally, the area of trees extends beyond the boundary and this larger area is what could have natural=wood applied rather than the boundary line itself.

Hi Osaka. `natural=wood` is not an appropriate tag for protected areas as they are not exclusively covered in trees. They contain may lakes, meadows, open rock areas, marshes, and other forms of land-cover.

Messed up the description on this change set. This is Elmore addresses, not Waterbury.

Reverted accidental import of reference data

osm.org/changeset/163503570

Realized that I had building conflation done incorrectly. Will re-do

osm.org/changeset/163259826

I realized that some buildings weren't properly conflated with the address points. Will try again.

osm.org/changeset/163257631

Hello, what is the reason that you changed Bennington from place=town to place=city?

The place=* tag is to indicate the regional importance of a place rather than denoting its incorporation status. The entire Town of Bennington has a population of only ~15,000 people, putting it firmly in the place=town category, even if it is the largest town in this region of southern Vermont.

See the following for more background:
* https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/toward-a-national-system-for-functionally-classifying-populated-places/113674
* osm.wiki/Key:place
* https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/broad-undiscussed-new-england-place-name-reclassification/111201

See https://www.vtcng.com/news_and_citizen/news/local_news/lake-eligo-zoning-changes-churn-the-waters/article_e8fadb80-f5f5-11eb-ba15-cfa6116c8a9b.html for a description of the dual outlets.

Hello, I was alerted by the land manager that a number of these trails are posted as private and not open to public use.

I've changed the one trail they specifically mentioned to access=private, but I am not familiar with this area and others may need access=private added as well.

Hi Sebastian, see osm.wiki/Key:expressway -- access control alone is not sufficient for `highway=motorway` tagging. For controlled-access but undivided (just yellow paint) segments, then expressway=yes is sufficient to denote the enhanced infrastructure that is not up to federal instate highway standards.

Hi Sebastian, please review these two wiki articles. The tagging convention in the US is to avoid using highway=motorway for very short segments of enhanced infrastructure where the portion that is enhanced to interstate standards is less than 2 miles and isn't otherwise part of the motorway network. In cases like Amherst's keeping the highway=primary and adding expressway=yes is the preferred tagging.

- osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance
- osm.wiki/Key:expressway

Please join us in the OSM Community forum's US category: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 or the OSM-US Slack's #highway-classification channel to discuss these topics.

Hi bibliotreka, I've reverted this change as the current community consensus is that highway=trunk is a connectivity-based classification, not a physical-infrastructure classification. highway=trunk is to be used for the most important regional roads that are *not* motorways. The fact that MA-8 doesn't look like a motorway (yet is still an important regional connector between Pittsfield and Vermont is why this road receives the top-level highway=trunk classification. Please see osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance and join us in discussions on https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 or the OSM-US Slack's #highway classification channel: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

osm.org/changeset/151771021

Hi @edops, I agree that places in Maine had been severely over-classified before this change and that this new state is probably a better starting point for place classification than every municipality being place=town. That said, OSM is a community project large-scale unilateral changes are frowned upon and can lead to edit wars. Please join in the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/broad-undiscussed-new-england-place-name-reclassification/111201 to discuss Maine place classification with others in the community.

Please read osm.wiki/United_States/Tags#Places and join in the forum discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/broad-undiscussed-new-england-place-name-reclassification/111201/7

From https://maps.vtrans.vermont.gov/Maps/TownMapSeries/WINDSOR_Co/HARTFORD/HARTFORD_MILEAGE_2022.pdf it does look like the Town "discontinued" part of the road, which would revert that segment to "ownership=private". I don't have on-the-ground knowledge as to whether it is posted as "No trespassing" or other access restriction though.

See also:
* osm.wiki/Vermont#Road_Ownership_and_Access
* osm.wiki/Vermont#Town_Highway_and_Legal_Trail_details

Thanks for the quick turn-around!