Hi Joe, good information. I always suspected that at least part of that trail was on private property, but when I ran it a couple of years ago, I didn't see any "No Trespassing" signs.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105980384

Hi Ryan! Many thanks for updating the access constraints for the Southeast Frontage Road, and thanks especially for a very good change set comment explaining how you came up with the information (first hand observation, cross referencing CDOT website).

I hope you are able to make more edits to OSM in the future.

Mike (Loveland)

Thanks for the update! It is great to see trail reroutes updated in OSM in such a timely fashion! I hope to get out there and check it out in the next couple of days.

One thing I might do is to add just the geometry for the old location back in with a note that the trail has been rerouted (won't show up on any map, will only be visible if one is editing). Hopefully this will decrease the likelihood that another mapper will undo your good work because the are looking at old imagery (some of the sources available in OSM are many years old).

Thanks for being open to feedback, and thanks for all of your other great contributions to OSM. It is great seeing RMNP getting some mapping attention!

There are going to be very few, if any, trails in RMNP where surface=compacted.

The trail from Bear Lake to the junction with the Flat Top Mountain Trail is certainly not surface=compacted - no surface treatment has been done. I have been on this trail many times.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105253346

Hi WendyBMA! Welcome to OpenStreetMap(OSM), and thanks for adding this trail. It is great to more trails, and more information about trails, in OSM. I presume "BMA" in your username refers to the Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance. If you, or BMA, have any questions about OSM, I would be happy to help out. For example, we can add information about the difficulty of the trails, etc.

Many of these trails that you have tagged surface=compacted are not. They are informal climbers trails, Nothing has been done to improve them, so they are surface=ground or dirt or unpaved
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105440342

Thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. Regarding: osm.org/way/840670701, a "bus_guideway" is for "busway that is side guided "rails like" for the exclusive use of guided buses" - there are no guides here, it is just a regular road that is for the use of buses.

Thanks again for your interest in OpenStreetMap. Please be very careful when deleting features from the map. As I commented on one of your other changesets, in OSM we map what is on the ground, not just what is "official", but in this changeset you even deleted some official trails (e.g. trails to official back country camp sites). You can always reach out to the other mappers who have edited the object in question as opposed to simply deleting their work.

What source did you use to determine that:
osm.org/way/361832079

is a sub station and not a power station? It is in fact a small hydro power station (I have visited this location a number of times).

After consulting with the community I left the location of the old trail with a note, and the appropriate tagging:
abandoned:highway=path so that those using outdated satellite/aerial imagery would not move the representation of the trail in OSM back to its old location.

Thanks for your interest in OSM.

In OSM we map what is on the ground, not just what is official.

Ok, this is strange. I see that there is a GPX trace there.... with my user name on it! Thinking back, I think it was mainly an off trail adventure, and there isn't a trail there. I guess I will have to head back up there in the spring and hike it again.

Thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap, and especially to the mapping in support of the fire fighting efforts.

I am wondering what the source was for adding this path. I have hiked all of the surrounding trails multiple times, and have never seen a junction for this one. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist - I do sometimes fail to observe such things.

Mike

If there was water between those stones, then that makes sense. I hadn't thought of it that way.

Thanks for your reply, and for your contributions to OSM!

The trail, and the entire park, are closed now due to the fires around here, but I will try to make it back up there when it reopens and look specifically for any fords. I have hiked this trail in spring like conditions, and what I recall is that you can generally have snow melt running off of the hillside, seeping across long stretches of the trail, and making its way into the adjacent drainage. I don't think that snow melt (or rain water) generally seeping across the long stretches of trail counts as a ford, otherwise there would be many trails that were just one continuous long "ford."

> Are there as many crossings as I have put here? Possibly not.
We should only map specific individual features that we have observed (either directly, or using an approved imagery source). In this case it appears that while you may have observed some fords on the trail, you didn't record their specific location, but automatically added fords wherever the stream on the map (which was only roughly digitized from old USGS topos - per the change set comments) intersected the trail (which was more precisely located based on Strava - again based on change set comments). Perhaps tagging the trail itself with "description=trail has fords, may not be suitable for all hikers" might be a better solution if the exact location of the fords are not known, and if that was your impression of the trail.

In one case, it appears you added a bridge:
osm.org/way/814356908
and then added a ford to one end of the bridge:
osm.org/way/406119057
I suppose that is not an impossible situation (implies that one end of the bridge is underwater or washed out), but I would say that it would be rare. It does suggest that the bridge was added, but because it didn't actually cross the waterway on the map, a ford was placed where the trail did cross the waterway on the map to squelch some error that the iD editor may have given.

I understand your concern for families with small children. However, if the fords are not correct in number and placement, we are giving information that may not be helpful, for example if someone wanted to just hike a part of the trail that didn't have fords.

Have you actually hiked this trail? I have hiked it dozens of times and I don't recall there being fords. It is more likely that the waterway in question is misaligned.

I don't have strong feelings on this either. I just tend to tag explicitly what I observe on signs along the trails and/or what is in the official USDA-USFS data. I don't live as close to this site as Rob, but I do visit it to mountain bike a few times a year.

Thanks Rob. I see now on the wiki that sac_scale=* does imply foot=yes. I was not aware of that. Interesting that the same doesn't appear to be true for mtb:scale=* implying bicycle=yes... or perhaps I missed that as well.

Hi Rob, I noticed you removed foot=yes from some of these trails, such as osm.org/way/116560024 I rode this area a couple of days ago, and the Carsonite signs along the trails all indicate that foot travel (as well as horse travel) is allowed.