Repeatedly adding fictitious names to the map is vandalism. Please stop doing this.

Great, thanks for the response and great mapping!

Hi and thanks for your additions to the map. I noticed that you mentioned that you are using the Duke Gardens Map. It's great that you noted that. One thing to be careful about using printed maps is that they are under copyright and you should double check that it is legal to add that information to the OSM database. Maps are under copyright unless otherwise noted. Some maps may have copyable data e.g. public domain, or a Creative Commons license. Alternatively, you could contact Duke Gardens and ask them if you could use their map data for OSM.

See here for an explanation: osm.wiki/Copyright

Thanks for the note. I thought that I had excluded named streams from the conversion, but can go back and undo that.

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I live in Durham and have never heard this area called the 9th St Submarket. Do you have a source for this. I think locally we refer to it as "9th Street" or "9th Street District". If there is an official source, I'd be happy to use it.

Locally, its frequently called 9th street

Just came across this changeset while adding sidewalks. THis is an excellent first changeset! Hope you come back and help some more.

Thanks for adding these boundaries. It seems as though we could take the name of the area off of the trails themselves now.

Also, it may be a little clearer if there was one boundary for each contiguous area.

Regardless, nice work!

This one looks good. Thanks and keep at it

Hi, thanks for helping map sidewalks in Durham. I want to point out that many sidewalks that you mapped in this changeset do not appear in any imagery or in the cities record of sidewalks.

Specifically, along Umstead, Fargo, South and Apex it appears that you mapped curbs as sidewalks. I may be wrong, but if you did see sidewalks, I'd be curious what imagery you used.

Nice

Hi Blake,

I'm glad that we can come to an accord. Regarding the boundary, I looked back the object history (osm.org/way/428034185/history) and it didn't look as there had been any changes to it. Maybe you missed the save button?

Thanks for the note Blake.

First a quick explanation of how these tracks were mapped. I have heard from all the mappers of these trails and none of them physically traversed the trails. They used Strava heatmaps that are the result of anonymized uploads of people and publicly available orthoimagery. Presumably these were unauthorized. So none of the mappers trespassed on Duke property.

That leads me to what I hope is a result of fast typing in your note: "the public's creation of and digital documentation of trails on private land is trespassing". I interpret this as meaning that the public is not allowed to physically traverse these trails, not that we cannot digitally represent them.

I assure you that my intent, nor that of other mappers, is not to encourage further use of these trails. However, the accurate information that I have recorded will be of use to trail users. As users pass by an unauthorized trail if they note on their map that this is, indeed, unauthorized, they will be less likely to use that trail.

I do get that the visibility of such trails on the map may encourage users who do not care about rules, so I think there is a reasonable cost-benefit in terms of trail usage of having these trails visible.

To minimize such use, I have altered how these trails are present in the database. The vast length of the unauthorized trails are untagged now, so they will never appear on a map. I have also added a note on these in the database telling future mappers that these are unauthorized trails so that they will not be tempted to re add them as present.

I have maintained very short stubs (on the order of 5 meters long) where these unauthorized trails intersect with authorized trails and have noted that these are abandoned and unauthorized. These will not appear on the bulk of maps that use OSM data and when they do appear they will be faded and have prominent markings noting that it is not allowed to cross them.

I feel these changes is a reasonable approach that expresses the reality on the ground and goes to a point of discouraging unauthorized trail use-- the general public looking at OSM derived maps will not see any long connecting trails for exploration.

Finally, I do appreciate the opportunity for recreation, teaching and research that Duke Forest provides (I've participated in all three ,including volunteer days, in the past 15 years or so, though this was my first visit to the Edeburn Division). During my recreational use of the , I have found that OSM maps have always been as or more accurate than the official maps that I purchased or that are available at the trailheads.

Hi,

I just want to explain why I have reverted large parts of this changeset. I understand your desire to not allow people to use unauthorized trails, but the mandate of OSM is to map what is physically present and to accurately describe it. I recently passed over all the trails in the Edeburn Division and thrice ended up on unauthorized trails before realizing my error. Given that these trails are visible and have been mapped, either from people traveling on them, via anonymous gps traces or orthoimagery, I am re adding them.

However, an important part of properly mapping is to note access restrictions and conditions on the ground. I have noted that all these trails are unauthorized by adding a tag access =no and furthermore have at a distance from their trailheads, changed the tag to abandoned, to indicate that they are (potentially) less visible.

I have also added bicycle restrictions and blazes where pertinent to more accurate indicate the reality on the ground.

There are a couple of items in this changeset that appear to just be things to do tagged as physical objects, e.g. the "Horseback Riding on the Beach" and free running station. If there is no actual path or station, these shouldn't be marked as such. If you want to indicate that running an horseback riding is allowed, then it would probably be better to tag foot:yes and horse:yes for the beach object.

Welcome to OSM! Thanks for improving the map.

Any objections to removing the mtb:scale tags from the tracks here? Given that these are not even biking trails, I think that having these tags is superfluous and potentially confusing.

Note that Mapbox Satellite has a bit of an offset in its imagery. The NC State Orthos are nearly always dead on.

I moved this building to match NC Ortho

Welcome to OSM! Thanks for your great work.

How did you modify the borders of this park? The original borders were based on imported data that may be out of date, but I'm curious how you determined the borders based on Bing imagery

I am going to revert this changeset as there is no evidence that this church actually exists