Thanks for the response. From the wiki:

"The access=no tag indicates that the object is not to be used by the general public". Furthermore, it specifically references "government facilities" which this land is basically.

"(access=permissive) open to general traffic until such time as the owner revoke the permission"

This is a state-owned restricted area for the protection of drinking water. Of the two, per wiki and local practice norms, access=no seems to be the more appropriate choice.

I appreciate access=restricted is obsoleted, however, I'd caution semi-automatically updating these tags without more local knowledge or have more specific sources of data than "bing" to support the change.

Thanks for mapping.

I see you updated access= to "permissive" on some islands in the Quabbin. Where are you getting this information from? According to DCR, this is strictly off-limits. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/02/01/2018quabbinaccessplansummary.pdf

I created before so I can fix it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101275182

Hello. For tennis court mapping it seems the convention is to map the rectangle defined by the baselines/sidelines...NOT the clearance outside. osm.wiki/Tag:sport%3Dtennis
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101063654

Forgot to add a source: https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/PH-Trails-Roads-17.pdf

Hello. There is currently no "Town of Dana". Furthermore, I don't believe this area is a "park" or a "recreation_ground" in the OSM sense of those tags and local practice elsewhere. I'd like to revise tagging and remove this historic town boundary as I don't think it's OSM best practice to map historical events/features like this. However, I wanted to reach out to you first as a courtesy as it seems you do a lot of editing in this area. Do you have strong feelings about why this should remain? Thanks.

Hello. Welcome to mapping in OSM. If you find it useful then likely someone else will too. I'm not local so can't speak to the details of your changes. However, your changesets should be broken up so it covers a much smaller geographic area. Usually, edits that are in the same town or neighborhood. This makes it easier for people to review, and easier to revert smaller chunks if there are issues. Happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100653278

Thanks for the catch. Missed removing MassGIS metadata from a parcel boundary import before uploading to OSM. Fixed. (and on another recent changeset too.)

Do purposely mean to remove my public land cover multipolygons on your edits? If not, I ask you to be more careful, please. I'm happy to provide some better explanation on how I go about creating these in case you don't realize you're doing this. It can feel like I'm wasting my time. Thanks.

Yes, we have explicit permission with MassGIS. Thanks for the feedback.

Hello.  Thanks for reaching out.  I discovered one can connect the MapWithAI plugin to basically any publicly available ArcGIS online server that has a "feature layer".  My workflow: download data from the desired source with the plugin.  This creates a separate layer.  Copy/paste selected ways into my working OSM data layer.  I do a "ctrl-alt-V" paste to do a "paste at source position" so the copied way(s) are in the same spot.  (IMHO this should be the default behavior for a regular paste).  I used to do the same with a selective layer merge command, but that seems to have broken on a recent update.  Once the way(s) are in my working OSM layer, I clean up the tags.  The plugin appends the "mapwithai:source=*".  I usually rename that to just "source=*" but missed it on this changeset.  "MassGIS OpenSpace" is the name I gave the source server in the plugin.  If the newly imported way is replacing/refining an existing OSM parcel boundary, I'll do a Ctrl+Shift+G "replace geometry" command to preserve history.

This (off-label?) workflow has GREATLY enhanced my JOSM experience.  It's nice an import from a server can be done all withing JOSM instead of the more "manual": export from source app, import, etc.  I guess it's not all that more work...but it just feels more integrated.
If you'd like to chat more, feel free to send me a message on OSM, and I can give you my regular email.  I'm also active on the OSM-US Slack: TomPar there too.  Thanks for your work on the plugin.

I sympathize. These third-party apps, with their divergent rendering conventions, are a big issue. I reached out on an OSM message board and it seems "access=no" is a more commonly respected tag to indicate "private". I heretofore never used the seemingly redundant access=no but will likely start now.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99400707

Hello. Per osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions and general practice I observe locally the "name" key should not duplicate tagging captured elsewhere e.g. "access=private". Unless the trail's name is "private", which I doubt, I think it best to leave "name" blank if it doesn't have one. Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99400707

Hello. The "Old Pickard Farm Trust CR" is private, as far as I can tell, and shouldn't get the "nature_reserve" tag. No? Thanks. https://concordma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2097/White-Pond-Trail-Guide

These changes messed up land cover multipolygons. For instance, you converted an 89 member natural=wood multipolygon to leisure=nature_reserve. Was this intentional? Can you provide some more details than "various changes"? This area is pretty complicated to landcover map because of all the wetlands. Thanks.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97662766

Hello. I think leisure=nature_reserve is more appropriate and more consistent tagging with very similar types of publicly accessible "conservation" land nearby (Storer, Chesterbrook Woods Beaver Brook, etc). Per wiki, leisure=recreation_ground seems to be for more human-altered parcels that often have mowed playing fields, etc. Happy mapping.

Looks like some of that Ferguson CR is public accessible. I double-checked. Gonna add back the nature_reserve tag. Thanks.

Hi Alan. Thanks for the feedback. I acknowledge this is an often contentious issue.

In my opinion, these private CRs, where there is no general public access, has caused more issues than benefit. My main points:

There is a proliferation of third-party apps, like AllTrails, that suck in OSM data, often without tagging nuance. It clutters up the map, makes it harder for the average end-user to route plan, and increases the likelihood of unwitting trespass because these private parcels look just like bonafide public land on these app's render. I know we don't have any control over how these polygons are used elsewhere, but I feel a responsibility as a data steward to be realistic on how the data is potentially (mis)used outside of OSM.

I also have concerns about how these polygons' metadata violate some of the mapping privacy norms outlined here:
osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

A lot of these private CRs are individuals' primary residence. OSM is not a property registry and citizen names should not be listed as "owner=*".

Perhaps my concerns could be satisfied by just eliminating the "leisure=nature_reserve" and all the other MassGIS metadata. However, I don't know what these apps are keying off. Perhaps the newer boundary=protected_area too?

My biggest concern is a chilling effect such that landowners are less likely to sign future CRs because they fear their private land may be interpreted as public.

If it wasn't for the convenience of MassGIS OpenSpace layer and that en masse import a decade ago, would we be mapping these private CRs individually nowadays? I tend to think not.

Happy to continue the discussion on here or on Slack. Thanks.

Hello. Thanks for the feedback. It was metadata I neglected to delete on a shape from MassGIS. Should be taken care of now on a subsequent changeset. Thanks.

...actually: removing said closed residential way because you also added a hamlet point which I think is the best way to demarcate this area. Thanks.