Hi Ray, thanks for the message! Things have evolved a bit on this front, at least in the US, in terms of consensus.

I recommend tagging any naturally woody areas, regardless of ownership, as natural=wood. Then, for groves of trees that are planted for lumber production (typically in nice rows), I'd use the existing tag you have here, landuse=forest.

There are some other tags that some users have proposed that may be better but those ones are still a work in progress. For now, I would not hesitate to tag woods as natural=wood.

The cart paths on this edit do not exist.

This edit says "missing buildings added" yet four were deleted. Deleted is the opposite of added. Why?

Hi there, are the forests mapped in this update managed in the sense that they are looked after for lumber production and not naturally wooded lands?

Thanks,

Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Meant to do this one on my regular account.

RunTrails: This is not a correction, but rather a regression. This edit will be reverted. See osm.org/user_blocks/5827

Hi there, tell me about these ref tags. Are they signed references, e.g. trailblazed things that are visible on the ground, or rather a utility to help organize the routes in the relation editor tool. While I appreciate good order in the relations, the ref or name tag should not be used for any 'mapper' purpose. Those data types have some meaning (see osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions ) If you'd like to put stuff like that in a note, feel free, but for things that are not observable on the ground, please don't misuse the ref fields.

-- Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there, there is an issue with your edits on this challenge. Rather than following the instructions, you've made up a tag `bridge_ref`. The tag should be `bridge:ref=`. Further, the instructions said to split create bridges where there were none, not just add a meaningless node. What was your intent here?

Solid work all around here! One minor correction and something to note about bridges. In this changeset you'd changed the Charmuth Road bridge to a surface road and marked the stream as a culvert. This could be a subjective thing but we just finished a project with Baltimore County to map all of their bridges with their references, so if you see a way with a bridge:ref field, it should remain a bridge, even if it doesn't really feel like a bridge on the ground. The sidewalk can be separate bridge sections adjacent. Under Maryland law, any culvert larger than 60 inches (5 feet) in diameter is no longer a "culvert" but rather a "structure". Structures have to be inspected and are rated according to their structural integrity. Many of them have posted weight limits. In the case of Charmuth, the county has not measured a max weight, according to their records, but they do treat it as a bridge.

Bridge mapping in OSM is a little odd with sidewalks as the sidewalks have to be parallel bridges. Some folks map the bridge deck separately to show the continuity, which can be useful. There are some of them well mapped on the beltway.

Cheers!

yes, please explain the deletes here.

I have added lots of these paths over the years based on LiDAR imagery which could show a path, or an old road, or something totally abandoned. You can delete these if they do not exist in your survey.

On a technical note, when mapping sidewalks/crossings, be sure to add a surface for wheel/foot-based routing help. You can simply say paved or unpaved, or something more specific, e.g. asphalt, concrete, wood, etc.

Hi there, I see you've been busy adding and updated OSM pedestrian/bike infrastructure around Baltimore County. Thank you!! I am on OSM Foundation moderator with the Data Working Group and live right in Towson. You will certainly come across some of my edits as you're mapping. I just wanted to say hello. Let me know if you ever have any questions or need a review of something.

Hopefully someone has welcomed you to OSM, as I see you just joined. Welcome if not! What brings you to the project?

Thanks,
Elliott

Why not cycleway=shoulder instead?

Solid work here, goodness!

Hi there, this changeset description says "Adding details" when it actually deletes quite a few things. Could you explain why you deleted all these things?

Thanks,

Elliott
OSMF Data Working Group

Thanks for checking! This was the one I was looking for with Joseph RP

This changeset reclassified several community agreed upon roadway classifications (mainly Trunk) perhaps due to a lack of understanding? It is tough to say without much of a changeset comment. See osm.org/user_blocks/5717

Review: osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Here is a nearby example of how to add large wetland areas. relation/12117017/history#map=13/25.2282/-81.0419

Hi there. The wetland in this changeset covers a large area that is not totally wetland. Did you intend to create such a massive water boundary? It would be good to split the wetland at places where there are big holes or openings, such as around ponds and such. If you intend to do this but it is still a work in progress, please let us know. You could avoid any issue by writing more detailed, unique changeset comments too.

Thanks,

Elliott
OSMF Data Working Group