> On Dec 20, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Kevin Kenny <kken...@nycap.rr.com> wrote: > > In at least one place (44.07447,-74.28335, says GPS) the trail crosses an > unnamed tributary of Pine Brook on a beaver dam that is visible in aerial > images. https://flic.kr/p/pFf3TV Hikers who don't quite believe that the > trail would do such a thing have created a use path extending up- and > downstream that peters out in both directions. So - What's appropriate > tagging for a way that uses a beaver dam?
I’d just mark that section `ford=yes`.. or I guess `ford=beaver_dam` if you want to be clever. (The `ford` tag works like `bridge`) > In several other places, destroyed bridges either serve as landmarks > https://flic.kr/p/oJrAXF or even have had the stone of their footings > repurposed to create a ford https://flic.kr/p/poN2vf . Is there tagging > that makes sense for this situation? Again, `ford=*` > Is it considered acceptable to delete ways that came in from TIGER and appear > never to have existed? In this case, I speak of roads shown in TIGER where > I've hiked across the routes and seen no sign of even an abandoned road - and > I use century-old abandoned grades for off-trail hiking fairly often. I know > what to look for even when the roadbed is grown to trees. For instance, to my > eye, it's obvious that https://flic.kr/p/nouCUC was once a road. In some > cases, I can't imagine what the TIGER people were smoking (and wish they'd > share!). Sure, I remove TIGER ways all the time. If you have local knowledge of the area, feel free to change the map to match reality. Thanks, Bryan _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us