It is amazing how many places around the internet this now appears :)

Ian, I found this test node. Do you think it is legit? node/356605718

Hi, was this change discussed anywhere? I'm asking as this area is under construction and the state government is interested in how routing appears to have been altered by recent changes on OSM. --Elliott Plack, OSMF Data Working Group

I trust your survey and on-the-ground intel! No concerns with data quality here. Another pass through would be great! Let me tell you what is being flagged across several online mapping platforms:

- [ ] **MD 4 SB → Suitland Pkwy → Dower House Rd/Marlboro Pike ramp**: check for a stray connection/tag letting routers go straight through the MD4/Suitland Pkwy signal instead of right-turn-then-ramp. Confirm turn:lanes / restriction reflects right onto Suitland Pkwy.
- [ ] **Marlboro Pike ramp geometry**: apps are routing across what should be a barrier wall — check for a stray way connection or missing physical separation (barrier=wall or way split) between the through lanes and the ramp.
- [ ] **No U-turn signal past Marlboro Pike ramp (SB side)**: add `no_u_turn` restriction if missing.
- [ ] **MD 4 NB at Dower House Rd intersection**: add/confirm `no_left_turn` restriction (MD4 NB → Dower House Rd) — this left was eliminated.
- [ ] **No U-turn at Suitland Pkwy (NB side)**: add `no_u_turn` restriction if missing.
- [ ] **NB ramp back to Suitland Pkwy**: confirm the "left onto Suitland Pkwy, then slight left onto dedicated ramp" path exists and is routable/connected correctly.
- [ ] **MD 4 SB → Armstrong Village/Imperial Oaks via Westphalia**: confirm left turn onto Westphalia is tagged correctly and routable.
- [ ] **Machinist Place left turn at MD4/Dower House Rd**: add `no_left_turn` restriction — no longer available.
- [ ] **No-right-turn MD4/Dower House Rd (NB)**: verify `no_right_turn` restriction actually exists in OSM at this node (Google is still routing through it, so this may be missing or mistagged).

Sparks: have you been through here in person recently? Maryland DOT wants to make some updates with some new information as of this morning, but I want to respect your on-the-ground work. What's the latest?

Hey! Harmony Road does not count as private in OSM sense. Private access in OSM for a named street requires a gate. However it doesn't look like a named street at all. you should switch these over to driveway when doing running qa mapping.

hey! I tried to route along here but hit a roadblock at this crossing: way/1373224183

Is that little bit open too?

Thanks for the extra detail. I've done some testing on my end and can't reproduce a routing issue tied to this changeset — the tags changed here don't affect access through the gate.

What I did find is that the node itself was later edited (separately) to remove the gate/barrier tagging entirely and reclassify it as a welcome sign — that's likely the actual source of the routing change you're seeing. I'll be reverting that edit and re-tagging properly: bollards for pedestrian/cyclist access, and the sliding vehicle gate as its own feature with access hours (7am–7pm) applied, based on what Goucher Campus Safety confirmed.

I'll follow up once that's done.

Hi there, I’m a member of the OSM Foundation Data Working Group. Can you please give me a few more details about what exactly broken in this changeset. If your application has a problem, interpreting OSM tags I suggest you adjust the parameters so that students with permission are exempted from normal routing restrictions.

Hi there, I saw your edit here which deleted the Genesse Valley camp that I'd mapped. While it may not be a camp per se, updating the tag to summer camp or similar would be the better call, or at least discussing it with the mapper (me). Thanks!

meant to use the change set comment: added lots of woods and residential landuse

Thanks, appreciate the follow up. All sounds good to me as you prioritized preservation over railroading this through. Keep up the good work. Thanks!

Hey thanks for adding this! Have you noticed any improvements since this has gone into effect?

Thanks for addressing my note!

—Elliott
OSMF DWG

thanks

Hi there, we should revert this update though I do appreciate the attention to detail. DelDOT just updated this section 45 MPH throughout. I'm here on-site today. Have you been through recently?

Hi Nater, I don’t have any firsthand insight but I’ve asked for comment from FPVSP. Stay tuned.

Thanks for the survey and edits!

Please do not map the woods to the boundary of the watershed property. they should be mapped the the extent of the actual woods. osm.org/user_blocks/20708

Hi there,

`access=no` is not the appropriate tag for a closed trail. That tag is reserved for paths that are legally prohibited, such as when FPVSP or DNR posts a sign.

If a trail is no longer present, it is better to tag it using the `abandoned:*` lifecycle prefix:
abandoned:=**

I’ve gone ahead and fixed it for you.

– Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group