Hello @Crete Greece.

You might want to be aware that convention states that you shouldn't put a description of a feature in the "name" of the OSM element. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only for details.

Thanks for the contributions.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap Dick. Nice to have more people in Oregon doing mapping. I've made a couple of changes to your additions to follow OSM guidelines a little more. (If you don't agree with my changes, let me know or go ahead and revert them.)

The first thing I changed was getting rid of the abbreviations like "NE" and "St". You can read more here: osm.wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29

Then I converted the name_1 and name_2 keys to a semi-colon separated alt_name key as name_# keys are deprecated: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Remove_suffixed_name-tags_from_wiki

I also tried to match up the names and alt_names with the connecting roads, but I'm not sure I did the right thing as I'm not local. The northern road is Lambert and the southern road is Cornelius. Are you local? If so, please tidy these up as you have more local knowledge.

Thanks again for the contributions and hope to see you again.

There is already a defined track road for part of these snowmobile gps-tracks(?). You shouldn't be adding a way where one already exists, should you?

FYI, the Bartlett River Trail you uploaded duplicated nodes (went all the way out and then doubled back along the same nodes). It also duplicated portions of the Lake Trail that you uploaded on the same day.

Hello @braidrass and welcome to OpenStreetMap. Your contribution is appreciated. I noticed you asked for a review. Most of your addition looks just fine but I wanted to let you know about a feature to "square" the corners of things like buildings by selecting the line and hitting 'Shift-S' or right clicking the line and selecting the Square function. It will make sure all of the corners are 90 degrees, like most buildings are built with.
We hope you come back again.

Hi Franta, I noticed that your trail had man duplicate nodes. I'm curious to know what tools you used to upload the kml file. Maybe we can file some bugs against some tool to make sure it doesn't create the same exact node several times. I've fixed the trail already, so nothing else to do here.

What type of business is this?

Another: osm.org/way/638755828

BTW, the way in question is osm.org/way/638134323

If this is an ongoing process, you might want to consider adding a self-intersection check to the ways that are being drawn. I've noticed a couple of examples where the line crossed back over itself, which triggers various validation checks. If you load your change files into JOSM, one of the validation checks that is run before upload is a check for that error.

"It will be completely deleted when merged to the primary relation(s)."

Are you still planning on deleting this?

@nathanerogers, you might want to check out umap (http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/new/#17/45.56673/-122.62325). It will allow you to create a personal map with your checkpoints.

OK. I went ahead and deleted them. Sounds a bit like an orienteering class. I've wanted to get into that. Too bad I don't live close enough to join you for the exercise.

Hi @nathanerogers. Can you tell us a little more about these checkpoints. I'm not sure they really belong as part of the map, but maybe you can explain it more and we can help you set up appropriate tags. Thanks.

Hey there @cbeddow. Whatever you're using to create those closed ways is creating duplicate nodes. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-108.50637&lat=45.81372&zoom=14&overlays=duplicate_node_in_way for some of them.

@Nakaner, maybe you can add a feature to only show actual errors (self intersecting ways, duplicate nodes, etc). Also, it would be helpful if OSMI could put some language in the pop-up for long segments saying that people shouldn't fix them.
As for the Bermuda Triangle, I reverted my change a day or two ago as the consensus seems to be to not fix this class of (non-)problem.

Some more discussion on the topic is taking place on the US Slack instance: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1540853913092600

From the OSM Inspector wiki page: "So while it might not be a "proper" solution its certainly pragmatic to make the segments shorter. Another problem is due to the current implementation of the OSM API: When requesting all objects inside a bounding box only nodes in this bounding box and ways having a node in this bounding box will be returned. (This is done because it is more efficient.) So the longer the segments are and the smaller the bounding box the bigger the chances that some object will not be returned from the API call and might not appear on the map."

Another reason for breaking these up is that any accidental moves of a way (to 0,0 for instance) would be masked by all of the other long segments that exist. If we segment the long ways, any mistakes that are made will be more likely to stick out rather than be obscured by many other valid long ways. So my argument is that you need to "clean" them all up in order for mistakes to stand out.

Also, thanks very much for the discussion. I appreciate the feedback.

IMHO, that makes complete sense for straight, smaller ways. But for massive ways it becomes a problem when the nodes that define the way are far outside of the bbox that you are querying for. You aren't aware that a way is traversing your work and that might cause an issue. It's one of the reasons OSM Inspector calls it out as a problem.