I reckon so!

Congrats igwax, you beat me to it by 17 hours! I read the ADN article last night and had looked forward to entering it into OSM but when I looked at it this morning, the Northernmost Glacier was already there.

I changed your tag "inscription" to "description" because there is no inscription (written sign or plaque etc.) present on that landform.

Cheers,

Dave

Okay. Thanks.

The footway in question is already on a bridge with layer=1.

Also, note that while I was the original mapper, user:Bernhard Hiller has worked on it since. He extended the footway and perhaps moved a couple of nodes.

At any rate, I adjusted the water boundary slightly but it will still probably produce an error if checked with some of the tools OSM offers.

The footway is on a bridge and crosses wetlands and open water. It might better be drawn if I worked to separate the boundary of the Thale Luang Non-Hunting Area from the shoreline of Thale Luang. I did not do that because it was too much work at the time.

In addition, the Thale Luang expands and shrinks depending on the season so the footway you're asking about does sometimes cross open water.

I hope this helps.

I just did this as a one-off. I don't usually map in Bangkok but when I last looked, there are many of these wide canals that are represented by lines only. I added the multipolygon but didn't worry too much about the bridges. I'm only doing armchair mapping so I didn't add any new bridges.

I think I fixed them now. Feel free in the future to correct them if you wish.

No problem.

I only added a name to this water body. It was drawn originally from Mapbox satellite imagery by Tom Layo. I don't know if there is an embankment or not, nor do I know that the highway exists.

I did realign the shoreline using Maxar-Premium but that's all I can do from here (in my armchair LOL)

Hi Julien,
As I said earlier, I don't have a favored outcome for this particular highway but as for the revised scheme, I can't agree with this:

"e.g. highway=track is used agricultural/forestry purposes, and it’s perfectly acceptable to have some paved"

Huh? Paved?

My solution for that situation is to tag the way as jighway=service with service=agrcultural and surface=*

Also, regarding cleaning up Grab's mess; that's up to Grab. We need to rein them in somehow, but I don't think it's wise to adjust our tagging to accommodate their incompetence.

Grab is bad, but then so are many "legitimate" OSM mappers — I clean up messy tagging and multipolygons made by OSMers almost every time I open JOSM. Overall, Grab probably add more value than trouble.

Cheers,

Dave

I reckon this can wait. It's no biggie either way.

I don't have a need to change that tagging and it's not worth the drive out there to see it.

Looking at the fairly clear delineation of it in the imagery, it appears to be more than a track. I define a track as a way through that is visible but not a real "road", something you might want to think about before driving the family car on it.

As in so many other things OSM, there's a lot of subjectivity that enters into our decisions about how to tag and why. LOL

Be well....

Hi,

I was working in the area of this changeset and saw that you had added a surface tag to a way that's currently tagged as a track.

way id:320167785

The track tag was applied long ago and I don't think it's correct. Many old tracks have been widened and are in continual use so my feeling is that this is an unclassified, unpaved highway. But I haven't been there and you have.

What's your opinion?

Hello,

I came across s island in the Clea Lakes that is possibly a crannog which also has the name=Crannog. Is "Crannog" an actual name that can be found on a map?

Or did you mean it as a description rather than a name?

Thank you

Okay, thanks for the information. I added the ref tag to the sections of the old ชม.4038, and split that road at the coords you provided.

Ban Bhubing?

This section was also once tagged as 1004, right?

I did see a couple of milestones on the section of road just past the campground having ref=ชม.ถ1-0035.

I assumed they applied only to that short section and not the whole way.

Can I assume that highway classification applies to the entire stretch of highway from the traffic circle atBan Bhu

It's not the 1004 I'm talking about but the smaller road that heads north to Ban Khun Chang Khian. It has id:54460506 and the ref, marked by a couple of signs, is ชม.4038.

I was just up there yesterday and can verify that the route ref signs are still present.

Hello,
It seems you removed the ref tag from the road that goes to the Hmong village on Doi Suthep. My tag source:ref clearly says that the ref appears on signs along the way.

Is there some reason you removed the ref tag?

I will add the ref tag again today.

Funny coincidence: I just noticed some other trail segments tagged with name=Pre's Trail that I'm sure are incorrect. I just haven't had time to fix them.

My guess is that the name got propagated onto those segments by accident. I'll bicycle over to Alton Baker Park at some point and try to straighten those issues out but I'm fairly certain that the way you referred to above isn't part of Pre's Trail.

Hi Bernhard,

I'm visiting the Krung Ching waterfall area and the position where you placed it is wrong. I hiked part of the way to it this morning but did not reach the falls. We turned back because it was much farther than we expected.

So, I removed the name tag from your waterfall node but I cannot intelligently relocate it. Maybe I'll find another reference to Krung Ching Waterfall somewhere and then add it to OSM at that time.