Hello again, and again, welcome! It is great to have more mappers in this area.

Again, some minor feedback:
1) Again, better to modify what has already been mapped as opposed to deleting and recreating.
2) Use the context menu to square the corners (right click on the feature and select the square).
3) Building=yes is ok, but building=roof would be better osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Droof (assuming the shelter is open on at least two sides.
4) You indicated that you corrected the name of the shelter, but I didn't see a name. Nevertheless, if you did change a name, it would be important to cite a source for your change, such as a sign on the building.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108208730

Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap! It is great to have you as part of our community.

One suggestion - we like to keep the geographic extent of changesets as small as possible. In the case of this changeset, it seems to encompass a large part of both North and South America.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108219418

Hello BradyBrother100!

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your edits. It is great to have you part of our community!

You asked for a review, so here are a couple of minor points:
1) Generally I like to edit the existing data, rather than starting over. OSM maintains a complete history of a given feature, and by deleting someone else's work and starting over, you break the tracking that allows that history.

2) Generally I like to see buildings that have square corners in reality mapped with square corners. If you get it close by hand, you can use iD's context menu and click the square.

Mike
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108208592

Hello again Greg,

Nice catch on the trails around Bierstadt!

I do have a couple of questions.

1) You changed osm.org/way/574832847 so that trail_visibility=bad. What was your source for this? It shows up on the Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta) that you cite as one of your sources. I was on that trail a couple of years ago, and at the time it was very visible. It also has a fairly strong signature on the Strava Heatmap, so presumably (before the fire), it got quite a bit of traffic. The strong Strava signature doesn't prove that is is highly visible, all of those users are going to tend to wear a path into the ground that is visible. The area did burn, but I have hiked in burned areas before (once it was permitted to do so), and usually the trail is still visible. I do think that given the relatively weak Strava signature on osm.org/way/310456812 that you are probably right on this one being trail_visibility=bad (or perhaps the NPS has blocked it off or is restoring the area to the natural habitat?), but it would still be good to have a source, note, or explanation.

2) You removed bicycle=no from this section of the Mill Creek Trail that is carried by a bridge: osm.org/way/291408135, yet the trail segments on either side of the bridge still have bicycle=no, and no bicycles are allowed in trails in RMNP (I think there are some exceptions now, but not here).

Mike

I appreciate the nice words, and I appreciate what you are doing mapping in RMNP and surrounding areas. I use OSMAND to navigate while running, hiking and biking in the back country, so accurate and complete data is important.

Yes, there is a lot of sloppy mapping. I see that you, like I, and a few other mappers, are aligning trails to the Strava Heatmap. I worry that some clueless person will come in a wreck all of our hard work by aligning to their GPX track and/or the latest imagery source. I have started to watch this area using OSMCHA and commenting when I feel the need to (and fixing).

Snark: no offence taken. I got a little defensive myself. I think those of us that have invested so much in OSM, like you and I, get fairly passionate about defending it.

Thanks. I learned some things from this conversation.

Yeah, a couple of times I have added a long list of access tags (because that is what is listed on the National Forest signs), but generally I try to simplify.

I think most of us want the same thing - high quality trail (and other) map data.

Regarding using highway=track for trails that allow motor cycles:
From the wiki page for highway=track[0], when not appropriate to use:
"A trail or path that is not wide enough for a typical four-wheeled motor vehicle [2]. See highway=path, footway, cycleway, and bridleway."

[0] osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

'Note that explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables imply may be still useful. For example bare highway=path may mean either "surveyed and all defaults apply" or "mapped from LIDAR, not surveyed, may be private". In contrast highway=path + foot=yes + bicycle=yes is more clear what is its meaning.'

Same source

Again, the wiki does not say that highway=path implies foot=yes, nor does it say that it implies bicycle=yes, or horse=yes as you seem to be suggesting. What is your source for these assertions?

There is nothing on the wiki[0] about highway=path implying foot=yes that I see.

The wiki does say that highway=path implies motor_vehicle=no, but there are a lot of highway=path(s) around here (in the National Forest) that do allow motor cycles, ATVs, etc.

[0] osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath

Thanks for the edits in RMNP!

I am curious as to why you deleted foot=yes and motor_vehicle=no from the Flat Top Mountain Trail?

Is there really a "trail" between Hallet Peak and Otis Peak? I recall it as being just tundra for the most part (there is a small bit of "trail" in the saddle between the two peaks).

In any event, you extended the trail that went from Flat Top to Hallet to make it go to Otis, but if there is a trail to Otis, its characteristics are certainly different than the trail from Flat Top to Hallet. For one thing, Flat Top to Hallet is pretty visible. You also deleted the width tag. If you don't think the trail is 0.5 meters wide, what is it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108078372

Why do you say the access to the boulder field toilets is "permissive", and not "yes"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108078688

osm.org/way/550315563 certainly looks like a zebra crossing, yet you changed it to crossing=marked.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107953012

Hi Brandon! It's Mike T, I have corresponded with your brother before. Anyway, thanks for the edit, OSM was missing that natural area completely. It does seem that a part of that track is now part of the trail, perhaps that part should be retagged highway=path? in any event, that part is at least foot=yes. There is also a little bit of the original track that leads to the parking area, but that probably should be highway=service now. Anyway, I made some tweaks, hope it doesn't mess with what you are doing. Mike
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107990124

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

This looks like someone's driveway, and indeed it is tagged as highway=service, service=driveway, in which case it is unlikely to have a name.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107968018

You are tagging side walks as bicycle=yes, but you don't cite a source to support this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107953012

Why do you say osm.org/way/629588122 is highway=path, rather than highway=footway, footway=sidewalk?

Again, the sources you cite do not support the changes you are making.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107868107

Hello again, I realize that this was an existing error, but the name tag should only be used for the actual name of a feature, not for additional information, such as "dismount."

Also, you still need to cite your source(s), as whether bicyclists have to dismount or not cannot be determined by looking at Bing Imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107864253

Regarding osm.org/way/963180300
The name tag is only for the name, not to describe access information.