Hello,

Thanks for editing OpenStreetMap. Is osm.org/node/7164807687 real? What is your source and what exactly is it? I am very familiar with this area and have never heard of a "Test Site" at this location, or anywhere near here.

Never mind, I found this document from the City of Fort Collins that mentions it:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwi9jK3zyLTpAhUQnKwKHXhcAvsQFjABegQIAxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcitydocs.fcgov.com%2F%3Fcmd%3Dconvert%26vid%3D192%26docid%3D1612136%26dt%3DStreet%2BMap&usg=AOvVaw2OXJl8Xak1MNzg17CoZ17e

Hi Mike,

Do you have a source for the name "Harmony Reservoir" for this feature: osm.org/way/23599227? It is not named on the USGS Topo and I don't think it is in the GNIS? Perhaps it is mentioned in some city document?

Mike

Hello,
What is the source for the name "Turtles and Pelicans" on this body of water: osm.org/way/48606758

Thanks Terry Owen and phidauex.

Interesting. The way this came to my attention is I received permission from the City GIS Department to use their data in OSM. I started doing a comparison (not an import) on the water bodies data, and where there are discrepancies, I am doing additional research. In this case the GIS data from the City says this lake is "unnamed." I will provide feedback to the GIS Department.

Mike

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the edits to OpenStreetMap!

I am curios to know what the source is for the name "Shuster Lake." I live in the area and have not heard to it referred to as that (but I could have missed it).

Thanks,
Mike

Hello,

Thanks for the edits!

I see in this change set you added the name "Jodee Reservoir" to a body of water. I am curious what the source is for this name. Is there a sign along the trail perhaps?

Thanks,
Mike

Nice work! One has to be quick around here to be able to make edits to a new area!

jdoniche,
Thanks again for all of the edits. This is a big help in rural areas.
I noticed that the wiki page you cited in the change set comments list some of the users involved in this effort, but I didn't see yours. Perhaps I missed it.
Mike

Thanks for all of the edits!

OSM uses a functional road classification. Driveways should be tagged "highway=service, service=driveway", you can use additional tags, such as surface, to indicate its physical condition.

Vaidhev,

Your driver very well may have described that road as "a track." That
would be a reasonable description in informal American English. OSM
uses a more formal classification based on function rather than the
physical condition of the road. In OSM "highway=track" are for ways
that are for forest or agricultural access. Since this way goes to
someone's home, it should be tagged as "highway=service,
service=driveway"

Keep up the good work,

Mike

Hi, Thanks for all of the edits. Normally driveways are tagged highway=service (which you did in this case), and service=driveway. I am going to correct this case.

Hi, Thanks for all of the edits. I see you have added some driveways in this change set. That is great. Normally driveways are tagged highway=service (which you did), and service=driveway. I will go ahead and change these ways.

Hi, Thanks for all of the great edits. The way (782009843) which this change set created appears to be a driveway. Driveways are usually tagged highway=service, service=driveway, not highway=track. The driveway can be further defined by tags such as width=*, surface=* if those are known. I will go ahead and fix this case.

Per the change set comment, this change set modified way 6174958 to match ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) Beta, however, it doesn't match that imagery, particularly towards its western end (where the road in question doesn't seem to exist at all).

You make some good points, but the rule in OSM is we do not tag for the renderer [0], and we only use the name tag for the name[1]. If we start putting other information in the name tag we will start getting (difficult, experience hikers only, no bikes, dogs not allowed, etc.). You think it is important to indicate that this is "off trail" (which isn't really correct anyway, it is a trail, just not an official trail), others may think that the app they use doesn't properly symbolize these other characteristics, and so will modify the name to suit their needs. It is up to data consumers to properly symbolize and label features. I recommend that you open issues with the application that you use which are not symbolizing this features in a manner you find appropriate. In the case of open source apps, you can create a pull request.

[0] osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
[1] osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Hi dvdhns. Thanks for all of the great edits around RMNP. Just one comment, the name tag is for the name of the feature only, not other information, such as "off trail" there is a separate tag that indicates if a trail is official or not.

"content key is for materials in tanks or even pipelines" - true, but keys can mean different things in different contexts.

Could you cite some evidence that "description is very commonly used" for the content of signs?

"inscription" does seem to be the best choice (I was not aware of it - its wiki page seems to have only existed since December of last year), and I would have been fine with you moving the value of the "content" to it rather than "description." Also, in at least one case you moved part of the "content" to the "name" tag, which doesn't make sense. The sign may have content/inscription, but most signs don't have names.

Please do not add the elevation to the name of mountains, peaks, summits, etc. Please remove them where you have added them.

Raymond, Thanks for the contribution. As the README tag says, this trail no longer exists. It has been blocked off by the park rangers and is being restored to its natural state - which by this time is quite far progressed.