I am sorry I missed this message but thanks for sending me a ping. Publicly I'll admit these may not meet the true definition of administration. They do have limited special government oversight.

looks good here, thanks

Thanks for taking a look at these no longer used rails!

Hi jcarlson,

I’m interested in the approach you’re taking here—placing address nodes at the entrance rather than merging them into the building footprint. The usual convention is to merge the address into the building and then add an entrance node separately. Is this an experiment, or have you discussed this method with the OSM community?

Curious to hear your reasoning, as consistency in addressing is important for data usability.

–
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

hi there, Elliott here with the Data Working Group. This edit deleted a bunch of city names from the map (albeit over a decade ago). Was there any particular reason to delete all of that information?

Ah, I understand, the GSV guy added that tag.

Hey, whats going on with the reverts in this area? I see the max height was removed. mdroads surveyed these in person.

Nater,

In this changeset you deleted way/940070502 which broke the relationship definition for Ellicott City and Columbia. I am sure this was not intentional but do be mindful of how a data elements on the map may be involved in relations such that they don't appear to serve any purpose at first glance.

cheers!
Elliott

Hi, thanks for noticing! On taginfo we can see the material tag picked up after I added this. Do you want to update all these to the new standard? Fine by me! Cheers!

Thanks! It looks like node/11460968180 got moved way out of whack in this update. Can you doublecheck?

highway=footway are not typically mapped in the woods. You could add the informal=yes tag to designate that they are not formal trails.

osm.wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_restrictions

Are you using Wandrer? footways show up there if they are inside of a park, so this would not help there. The best way to map difficult to ride paths in OSM is adding the smoothness and visibility tags. Then if I were you, I'd lobby whomever manages the apps you are using to not show paths that are 'impassible' or very bad smootness. Check out this link for more:

osm.wiki/Mountain_biking
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140859551

Hi there, looks like you are adding horse trails so they show up on Waymarked Trails or similar apps. Adding all of the trails in a park as a single route is not supported. Routes are designed to be from point A to point B. If you want to make these sorts of edits, you'll want to create individual routes for each path.

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159997491

Hi Matt, welcome to OpenStreetMap. It looks like you are here based on Strava or one of the various completionist apps that use OSM data. We welcome your edits but please be aware that mapping a path as bicycle=no when you don't think it is bicycle accessible is not how that tagged is supposed to be used. access=no or private or only for *legal* prohibitions. Please only add access/bicycle=no if there is a sign prohibiting access or if there is a gate (anything gated is fine as private). Please correct any issue in your edits where this is the case. Thank you!

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group
OSM Foundation

Bravo! The new update looks good, thank you for the details and all that you and the Lyft team do. I appreciate you.

nice find on these ones at the new warehouse, thank you! Could you say (via the imagery) if the land here is still accurate to note as being under contruction?

its gone, unfortunately Bark Social is out of business https://barksocial.com/blogs/news/bark-social-one-of-the-nation-s-largest-and-most-beloved-dog-bars-is-closing-its-doors

Hello Nater Kane, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contributions around PVSP. I am interested in your work in the park as it relates to access, closed trails, and related matters. Myself, park rangers, and the FPVSP developed a means of auditing all OSM trails within the park a few years ago and speaking for myself, I'd love to have you continue with the torch. If it is easier I'd be happy to set up a call or meeting and I'm always happy to review any issues you find where they related to on-ground conditions and what is on OSM.

Warm regards,

Elliott Plack

Nater, thanks for trying to help here. Have a look at way/175902858

Something went awry there.

Greetings. What is the source of these boundaries named as orders? Is that name (the changeset name) something that can be observed on the ground, on a sign. If you could amend the boundary with sources, we'd appreciate it.

Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Yes, there are roads on military based that are open to the public but this is the exception rather than the norm. Garrison commanders can raise the FPCON at any time and limit the accessibility of the base (in areas behind the gates).

What I don't want to see is you (or anyone) make general edits to military installations without checking conditions. There have been a number of DWG cases lately where people make edits to bases over access, only to be reverted. Their reasoning is around being unable to route their [insert delivery app name] there. That is a software problem however. Routers can permit access over private routes if the developer desires to allow this.