> thanks for respecting my existing work around the old ski area at Hidden Valley.
Of course! That's high quality data.

> Are you familiar with Mapillary? I have started adding photos to Mapillary for RMNP

Oh that's cool. I didn't know about that one. I will try it out.

> I am in the process of trying to learn how to develop plug ins for JOSM.

That's really cool. Do you have any ideas that you're planning to add?

I would love to make plugins also, but I have so many other projects on the go, I can't really afford the time.

I was wondering if there was some opportunity to do some semi-automated mapping with machine vision algorithms powered by OpenCV. The Bing imagery is so much more readable round here - because of Colorado's less crowded cities. I've been thinking that it might be possible to do something with woodland recognition.

Also a simple flood-fill Bing imagery would be helpful for areas of a single color or texture.

>There has been endless debate on the US mailing list about this. . I don't agree with it, but the current practice seems to be to use all of the tags that you mentioned on each National Forest.

Ugh - that's pretty brain-dead. I think I would want to raise that issue again. I probably shouldn't have changed the tagging of the Roosevelt National Forest without agreement, but trying to map the area around the Cache-la-Poudre river over a giant green blob of supposed trees is nonsense.

At some point I think I'll submit a patch to the rendering rules so that boundary=protected_area shows up - even having a copy-paste of the rendering of boundary=national_park would be preferable to what we have now.

Thank you - it's great to hear from a local mapper. I recently moved here from London and I'm finding that adding detail to the map is a very helpful way to gain familiarity with the area.

The polygon I have added here is extremely coarse - I have done much finer work in the Bear Lake area by tracing Bing, but because it isn't really possible to do the whole outline in a single sitting, I have added this polygon as a place-holder.

Please feel free to add detail. I find the JOSM Improve Way Accuracy tool particularly effective at doing this. Also if you have any ground knowledge, that would be particularly useful because it can sometime be hard to delimit natural=wood, natural=scrub and landuse=grass.

I have been mostly using segmented-outline multipolygons to add these areas, so that adjacent land-cover areas can share segment ways in their outline.

Finally, you seem to be an experienced mapper, and I was wondering if you had any knowledge about the labelling of National Forests in the US. They all seem to have been labelled with landuse=forest - but this is incorrect because this tag implies implies that the whole area is a managed forest, and Mapnik renders it as a massive green blob - which obscures any more detailed land-cover information. I believe US National Forests should be labelled with boundary=protected_area;protect_class=6. But it appears that these tags are not rendered at all. It's strange because I would expect it to be rendered similarly to boundary=national_park. Are you aware of any discussions about the correct tagging of National Forests?

I think you're correct. This footpath doesn't exist.

I think you might be right about the lack of footpath. Also a footpath would be redundant given that there are so many cut-throughs round Mill Place and Mill Street

Google streetview is your friend ;)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.405629,-0.29836,3a,75y,83.77h,79.08t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sztR24w14TOqB5p2DvPp3wA!2e0?hl=en