A user has added about 20 beaches to the shores of Johnson Reservoir and Chatfield Reservoir in Denver, CO; I randomly checked a few and found nothing beach-like on aerial imagery and hence reverted them. The user has then doubled down and claimed “There are many areas in Southwest Denver that are beaches with sand that are not recommended for swimming. I live in the area, and the satellite imagery varies dramatically based on the rainy seasons.”, and re-added the beaches with the changeset comment “Chatfield reservoir has undergone major shoreline and water level changes over the last year to better serve as a water storage, as well as water recreation state park”.
Perhaps someone more familiar with the local situation can check whether these beaches are real, or the user is just inventing them in the (vain) hope of attracting Pokemon:
So it looks like they’re using Bing imagery, based on playing around with different imagery layers. Based on that imagery, the few I checked seemed like beaches (or as close as we get to them in the middle of the country). I don’t know enough about current water levels to know if they’re exposed or if the trees are still there, etc. Given the current drought levels I wouldn’t be surprised if this was visible again.
As far as I can tell, your only comment on any of their changesets (here) was at 2026-04-18 12:04.
Your reverting changeset was at 2026-04-18 13:25.
That means you gave them barely an hour to respond before you deleted their contributions?
On what basis do you deem them implausible?
Their changesets specify their source as local knowledge and aerial imagery.
You did not cite any sources for your changeset.
You also did not link to the changesets that you reverted.
You appear more like a vandal in this case than they do, and you owe them an apology for hastily deleting their work (which also included adding things like waste baskets and benches, not just beaches) without first discussing this with them or the community, without providing a source for your changes, and without following best practices with regards to traceability of your revert changesets - all of which you did while acting in your capacity as a DWG member, where you should be especially diligent and held to a higher standard.
Chatfield Reservoir is a flood-control reservoir with high seasonal variation in the water level – something quite visible if you flip between the available imagery. What you’re seeing as “beaches” are simply patches of bare ground that get exposed when the reservoir gets drawn down below normal pool to accommodate expected inflows.
I think Lumikeiju research is sufficient that EverydayKnight ‘s edits should remain until someone local disputes them. The few that I looked at in imagery look OK.
Chatfield State Park does have a swim beach along the reservoir, according to the park brochure.
To the broader issue, are we saying that natural=beach is only for a swim beach whereas natural=sand is for another naturally occurring beach that doesn’t serve as a leisure amenity? I vaguely recall a big debate about that a couple years ago. If the OSM English differs from plain English, then we may need to be more circumspect before jumping to the conclusion that someone is adding beaches for gameplay. It could just be a misunderstanding, one that we’ll keep running into (and normally an argument for aligning to plain English if possible).
That’s an argument I can’t follow as a frequent visitor of the Edersee which happens to be built for flood control and as a power plant but has been doubling as tourist destination for some decades now.
It, too, has “beaches”. And the waterlevel is very variable.
Mistakes happen, especially when having to constantly deal with bad-faith editing. While I appreciate the thorough review, I think it’s unfair to call out the revert as vandalism, and I disagree on that point. It’s just a simple mistake and could have happened to any of us.
That said, I think it would go a long way for @woodpeck to correct the mistake by reverting his deletion, apologize to the user, and better welcome them into the OSM community.
I live across the interstate from Chatfield State Park and the reservoir. The state park has undergone a massive transformation over the last 3-4 years as the army corp of engineers has worked to add acres of new water storage. To that effect, roads, paths, and the reservoir itself have been totally moved and changed.
I downloaded OSM to update the new waterline, especially along the south and southeastern shores. As I did, I noticed none of the beach areas were tagged, outside the swim beach on the western shore. The entire perimeter of the reservoir is a sandy shore, with any area that has access from a campground, trail, or path used as a beach. The reservoir is also used for paddleboarding and boating, with many boaters beaching for lunch. Paddleboarders likewise launch from any parking available.
Here is a great link to the project. Included in the website is a video that shows a lot of the beach areas around the reservoir, not just the swim beach.
And here are some other personal images of the beaches along the southern and eastern shores for reference.
The image links don’t work for me (all I get is a picture saying “Uploading this content requires registration”), so I’m going off the documents you linked to – in particular, the recreational facilities modification plan and the feasibility report/environmental impact statement. What I’m seeing in those documents is two beaches – one at Swim Beach and one at Roxborough Day Use Area – and massive areas of bare ground resulting from a designed 21-foot annual variation in water level. Sure, you can call that bare ground “beach” if you want, but don’t expect me to agree with you: I’d map it as “intermittent water” instead.
