It is done! osm.org/changeset/167584206

Hi Mateusz! It is indeed mapping a no-hunting sign--that is very observant of you. This may be that same issue we were discussing with the EveryDoor developers on GitHub. Although I cannot remember exactly what button I pressed in the UI, I believe my intent was to say, "there is a thing here that I'm not sure how to tag it."

Please consider adding a changeset comment on the relevant edits to draw the mapper’s attention to the issue. The MR challenge only asks participants to interpret imagery, and if that alone leads to incorrect edits, then a helpful, constructive note might assist the user (and others) in understanding what went wrong.

A short explanation based on ground survey expectations, local context, or verifiability principles would likely be more useful than a generic complaint. If the problem persists, we can escalate.

— Elliott
OSMF DWG

No worries at all, thanks for following up. I wrote a comment on GH.

Good find. I made this edit with everydoor so it must have been a bug. I don’t remember what shop it is now.

Your edits have been reverted as they contained fictional Pokémon content, which is not allowed in OpenStreetMap. Please ensure that all contributions reflect real-world data.

For more details, see the block notice: [User Block #17348](osm.org/user_blocks/17348).

Your edits have been reverted as they contained fictional Pokémon content, which is not allowed in OpenStreetMap. Please ensure that all contributions reflect real-world data.

For more details, see the block notice: [User Block #17348](osm.org/user_blocks/17348).

Hi! This edit made some bad data worse. Not your fault. The note:old_railway_operator tag was changed to another non-standard tag, and now we have a company that went out of business nearly a century ago listed as the operator. I will adjust. Cheers!

Hi Nick, thanks for the comments. However, the gates here precisely meet the OpenStreetMap definition of a private road. Please have a look at osm.wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate

I visited the community myself and had to show identification and be 'buzzed in'. "Access is only with permission on an individual basis" (in the wiki).

This sounds like a data/routing problem for Suunto and Komoot to deal with in their platform. This meets the standard of what OSM would classify as a private road. I suggest that you reach out to the developers of those applications to provide a checkbox to allow routing on private roads. As you can see in this example router on the OSM website, there is no technical issue with routing on private routes.

osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=41.34018%2C-75.02718%3B41.32346%2C-75.05735#map=14/41.32874/-75.04177

This one is a little tricky. I set up duplicates because there is a CDP called Friendship Heights Village and then there is an incorporated placed called Village of Friendship Heights. The latter is what this represented.

What is tricky about this is that the incorporation is via something called a "Special Taxing District". Montgomery County treats this like a municipality. Here's a summary of some research I've done. This could be a good community post.

# Special Taxing Districts in Montgomery County

Montgomery County has three special taxing districts established before the county obtained home rule status:

- **The Village of Friendship Heights** (1914)
- **The Village of Drummond** (1916)
- **The Oakmont Special Tax District** (1918)

Each of these districts is governed by a citizen’s committee, has the authority to levy taxes, and exists to provide municipal services. For revenue purposes, the State and County treat these districts and the County’s **nineteen municipalities** as a single group.

This means they:
- Levy property taxes
- Receive a share of County "piggyback" income taxes
- Receive State and County grants

For simplicity, these three special districts and the nineteen municipalities are collectively referred to as **"municipalities"** in the report.

Source: https://montgomerycountymd.gov/olo/resources/files/2008-5.pdf

Thanks Brian! What are the updates, in general, for my understanding?

Hello,

This is Elliott from the Data Working Group. The recent change to this road is incorrect and needs to be reverted. Please roll it back.

The data you referenced is inaccurate. I worked directly with the local county government, and this road was officially changed in 2010 to simply Charles Street—without North—outside of Baltimore City. The designation N. Charles St. only applies within the city limits. At the county line, it becomes Charles Street.

A more reliable source for this information would have been state or local government data, rather than the U.S. Census, which is outdated for this purpose. In the future, please verify changes with authoritative local sources before making edits.

Let me know when this has been corrected.

Best,
Elliott

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 osm.org/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