Thanks for the fixes!

You are not the first to have this problem with duplicate ways/nodes created with iD using a less than ideal internet connection. Not your fault - but it did need to be fixed.

You may be constrained by what Mapbox will allow you to do, but I would suggest taking a look at JOSM. It is much more powerful, and I don't think that it will suffer from these problems.

Nice work! Thanks for the edits.

One little thing, road/highway numbers are not names, and they belong in the ref tag. For forest service roads and trails we us FS ###. I made some changes
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108380640

Thanks for your reply!

Good idea to compare the stated distances with the mapped distances.
1) I would not assume that the information in the brochure is super precise. It is only meant to give casual park visitors an idea of how big of a hike/walk they are going to have.
2) Distances might be measured from the visitor's center parking lot.
3) OSM is probably missing a lot of trail detail (switchbacks, turns, etc.) that would add a little more distance. This is ok, maps are not supposed to be an exact copy of reality, only a representation. You could align the trails to the Strava Heatmap and get a little more detail.

Yes, not sure where Durphy Creek ends and Tan Oak Springs begins. It is possible that nobody knows, even the park rangers. I would use your best judgement and then leave a note and/or fixme tag.

The tag you should use for those yellow advisory limits is:
osm.wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory

But... you still need to cite your sources!

Hi, thanks for the edits. Is there anyway you could restrict the geographic extent of your changesets? This one covers much of the northern half of the Earth. Large changesets make them difficult to review.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108304333

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your edits. A couple of things:
1) We like to see the geographic extent of a given changeset to be as small as possible. For example, the size of a few neighborhoods, this changeset spans a large part of the world. Having changesets with a small geographic extent makes them easier to review.
2) We like to see buildings that have right angled (90 degree) corners in the real world, have such on the map. In the iD editor carefully draw the building, and then click the square icon on the context menu, if nothing happens, the building you drew was not close enough to having square corners to begin with, adjust and try again.

There is actually a speed limit sign on Springfield Drive stating "25 MPH" (you tagged as 15). There is also a yellow sign stating 15 MPH (below the warning sign that speed bumps are ahead), but these yellow signs are advisory only.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108279984

So the Spring Creek Trail is a cycleway, but the little bits that connect it to Centre Ave are not? But the little bits that connect that same trail to South Shields Street are cycleways?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108279769

Sources cited do not support changes made, e.g. maxspeed
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108279984

Thanks for the edits to our protected areas! A couple of minor comments:

Regarding osm.org/relation/12998781 and distance=1.7 miles, the unit abbreviation for miles, is mi, per
osm.wiki/Map_features/Units

I interpret the source you cite to mean that
osm.org/way/965982765
is part of the Lookout Springs Trail and not the Durphy Creek Trail. The same applies to osm.org/way/965982764

osm.org/way/965982765 should probably be added to the relation for Lookout Point Trail

According the the source you cite, the southern part of this osm.org/way/496390666 is the Tan Oak Springs Trail (I realize that someone else originally entered this trail, but while you are working on the area, might want to fix).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108331715

Greg, I am with you 100% on the "map what's there" philosophy. The other day someone deleted the Fire Trail in RMNP, I guess because now that it is in OSM, and therefore All Trails, it is getting too much use by the public? I restored it. NPS is even missing some official trails - trails that exist and have official signs! Other trails are mislocated by 100s of feet. I have reported these issues, and they never get fixed.

BTW, OSM and OSMAND are used by a local rural fire department for search and rescue, so having all of these trails, official and unofficial, is really important.

Yes, Mapbox has an effort to better map "Protected Areas" in the US, (they changed the title of their project after I pointed out that most of the areas they were mapping were not National Parks) see: osm.wiki/Organised_Editing_/Activities/_Mapping_Protected_Area_in_the_US_by_Mapbox So far no major damage, although they are generating a lot of overlapping ways, duplicate nodes, etc. The team is in Minsk, and I suspect it has to do with using iD over a bad internet connection. Some of the trail mapping is a little sloppy for my liking, but it is better than it was.

I think I will add a "fixme" tag to the fords. To me the presence of a a tag indicates some mapper had some evidence that the tag reflects reality, and if no evidence exists, better to leave the error for some other mapper to research and survey. But you are right, of all of the values, ford=yes, is the safest for the user as if they are unable to handle fords they will presumably avoid the route.

Mike

Hello again, It also looks like you are also created a number of duplicate ways, e.g.:
osm.org/way/965676102
and
osm.org/way/965654959

osm.org/way/965654960
and
osm.org/way/965676103

I recommend you run the JOSM validator on this area (or similar tool).

Mike

Hello,

Thanks for all of the edits, most look good, however, some of the driveways you have created are not connected to the rest of the road network, is there a reason why?

Examples:
osm.org/way/965676147
osm.org/way/965676146
osm.org/way/965676150
osm.org/way/965676154
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108263887

Sources cited do not support all of the changes made.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108278472

Sources cited do not support all of the changes made.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108278656

Sources cited don't support changes made. e.g. no way to determine maxspeed from "Bing Aerial Imagery." Guessing? Copying from a copyright source?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108274577

Sources cited do not support all of the changes made, e.g. no way to tell max speed from overhead imagery (unless it happens to be painted in big letters on the pavement, which I don't think it is).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108274908

Sources cited don't support all of the changes made. Copying from another map?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108276807

You are again making changes which the source you cite (Bing Imagery) does not support, and you refuse to respond to changeset comments? Are you copying from another map? Does that map have suitable license such that it can be used as a source for OSM?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108276904

Greg,
Thanks for the response and for fixing! I am now curious to get back to this area once it is open again to the public. I wonder if osm.org/way/310456812 is now access=no, or even disused:highway=path (in addition to not being very visible). If there is a trail somewhere, Strava users tend to go down it, even if just to "check it out."

I think some of the fords in this area are really bridges, but of course I can't check due to the closure. The tree canopy obscures the view so overhead imagery is no help.

BTW, looks like Mapbox has an effort underway to improve the data in National Parks and similar areas. It will be interesting to see what they do.

Mike