What's the story with Laurance Lake Road? (osm.org/way/551745111) Why did you change it to a footpath? I'm not seeing anything online about it being closed / washed out / etc. For what it's worth, I drove it last last fall.

I'm with the team in charge of COTREX data (Natural Atlas) and would be happy to fix / look into any inaccuracies you encounter. If you right-click on the map on COTREX and click "Submit Map Feedback", it'll come directly to us and we'll take a look!

As for the license of the data and permissions, I'd talk to Alex Alma with DNR. If you email dnr_cotrex@state.co.us, he'll see it and try to answer or will route to someone who can.

Hey Mike, likewise! This particular feedback came via COTREX from one of their rangers, Zachary L. Cook, who's likely not too in the loop on GIS and permissions (but I could be wrong)

These are non-motorized hiking trails (albeit roads) that are open to the general public, managed by the BLM (Sacramento River Bend Area). The official guide is here: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/media-center-public-room-california-sacramento-river-bend-area-guide.pdf

Setting access=private isn’t appropriate because this is public land and anyone can travel along these routes. Motor vehicle use is prohibited, however, which makes the motor_vehicle=no tag correct in this case.

The values for it are the same as the access tag, outlined here: osm.wiki/Key:access. For "no" it states: "No access for the general public. Consider using additional access (like foot=yes or bicycle=permissive, etc.) to indicate who can use the element. If only specific transport modes are forbidden, for example, at a vehicle no-entry sign, use a more specific restriction like vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no over the general key access." This seems appropriate.

Further, it states: "access=yes, motor_vehicle=no means that all transport modes except motor vehicles can use the element." Setting an access tag when I really don't know the full access rules of these trails (are bikes allowed?) is not appropriate.

Thanks for the review!

Hey, thanks! That's correct. For instance, osm.org/way/655729555 is open to OHVs but not Highway Vehicles. If something's not allowed for both I set motor_vehicle=no. That said, I haven't gone in with a fine-toothed comb yet (need to!)

I cleared it up a couple days ago. All's fine now!

Just a heads up: something was awry with this changeset and it broke Central City Parkway:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9mgi94cdqnqg94r/Screen%20Shot%202018-05-10%20at%201.12.57%20PM.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/einrd7khm5fbyk7/Screen%20Shot%202018-05-10%20at%201.18.05%20PM.png?dl=0

Hey, thanks for the note! Though this wasn't me. The overlap was introduced in: osm.org/changeset/54612684. Some pretty widespread overlap & disconnected-way problems were introduced around that time by that user. I've been slowly trying to chip away at it. All help is welcome!

Hah, fair enough – the OSM documentation is definitely sketchy in spots especially when it comes to surface qualities and how it relates to the highway tag. If you happen to still have links to the posts you mentioned, mind sharing them? Maybe they can be fixed up. If not, totally understand.

These are residential roads – is there any reason why you changed all of them to unclassified? (normally reserved for access roads lesser than tertiary)

Ahh, thanks for clarifying! The highway=track tag has been pretty murkily defined unfortunately (especially on that page) – not your fault. I just edited the wiki you mentioned to [hopefully] make it a little less misleading

Out of curiosity, why did you change this road to a track? It should be unclassified, as it's a well-established access road. It also has service roads coming off of it for Deer Park Campground and the top interpretive trail / viewpoint.

The Darby Canyon road is NOT a trail. It is a drivable road. Why did you change this?

Please stop. A road being dirt does not make it a track. It's well developed (just not paved), maintained by the county, and has multiple residences on it. Even if it were a track, why not bother doing the rest? It's these sorts of edits that make OSM a mess.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iri6anxlu38tw1j/Screenshot%202015-08-06%2004.50.45.png?dl=0

It's definite gray area for sure. That all makes sense too. Anyway, I didn't mean to clobber your work! I first saw it and figured [wrongly] it was an oversight. You've been doing some epic work in the Portland Area. Maybe there's someone else who knows the "proper" way on this.

Hey Grant. Hmm, maybe we have different interpretations:

- "Just one or *two* large cars. The cable forms a loop, but the *cars* do not loop around, they just move up and down on their own side."
- "Cable cars are aerial tramways that are just one *pair* of big cars that go in alternating directions to each other from A to B" Source: osm.wiki/Tag:aerialway%3Dcable_car

Having two distinct ways adds other problems:
- Which nodes get the distinction of being pylons/stations? If both on each side do, that implies there are two pylons and two stations on each end.
- Having two ways implies there's two Portland Aerial Trams. There are two cars, but only a single tramway.

Examples elsewhere:
- osm.org/edit#map=19/43.58756/-110.82832
- osm.org/edit#map=19/45.28158/-111.44196

What do you think?