Hi Christian. I just reverted a portion of this change for two reasons:
1. The East Coast Greenway relation is a "super relation" made up of state-level relations, so the individual road/trail segments for the ECG in a given state should be part of (e.g.) East Coast Greenway (ME) rather than the super-relation.
2. We (mostly me and ElliottPlack) try to keep the OSM route in-sync with map.greenway.org. Since construction isn't finished, this section hasn't been officially adopted yet. There's an OSM wiki page with details: osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks/East_Coast_Greenway

-Eric

Hi. Just a heads up - please don't add individual road/trail segments to the East Coast Greenway super-relation. It is a relation that contains separate relations for each state's portion of the ECG for the sake of keeping it in manageable pieces (more info at osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks/East_Coast_Greenway). In this case, the Southern Boulevard should have been added to the East Coast Greenway (FL) relation. I'll sort it out.

Thanks for catching this, Udarian.

1. My first reaction was its government data, surely it's public domain? But then I realized it's Florida so all bets are off. But then I looked and data on the Miami-Dade Data Hub are "...made available without copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret, or similar regulation other than reasonable privacy, security, and privilege restrictions." https://gis-mdc.opendata.arcgis.com/documents/2b91577ca9fb44a289b6d74ec884fd5b/explore
2. You're right - I toggled through a few satellite sources and must have confused the chronology. It looks like there used to be a parking lot and is now a large building (visible in Bing, under construction in ESRI World Imagery).
3. I didn't realize construction was still ongoing. So I agree adding the trail through the transit center may be premature.

I came across this while editing the East Coast Greenway (FL) relation which was broken here. I'm not local, so can't check out the site in person. What are your thoughts on the best way forward from here? Options that come to mind include:
1. Revert the change
2. Change attributes either to access=no or highway=construction, construction=bikeway
3. Add a map note asking for local verification.

Yeah, it's all working on the ordering of the East Coast Greenway (MA) relation. So it covers a big area, but there were no spatial changes to any individual members of the relation (moving nodes, etc.) - I try to commit those separately.

Thanks for the reminder about the LIDAR data! Yes, I have often used it as a secondary source when mapping trails, although apparently not for Clark Preserve.

Hi. I'm concerned about this edit. Why are you removing the woodland boundaries? They look like valid demarcations. What do you mean by, "causing issues with software design"? Is this referring to some 3rd party software that uses OSM as base maps for golf courses? If so, I don't think the limitations in that software are a valid reason to remove information from OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160221847

Hi. I'm concerned about this edit. Why are you removing the woodland boundaries? They look like valid demarcations. What do you mean by, "causing issues with software design"? Is this referring to some 3rd party software that uses OSM as base maps for golf courses? If so, I don't think the limitations in that software are a valid reason to remove information from OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160221847

Forgot to add source: https://wellesleyma.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4fd22fe30a3a4d1f8444c083b408ae25