Hi there. I'd just recently surveyed the new roadway alignments at the eastern side of the Key Bridge. I'm not sure who did it, but a lot of the roads have been mapped to outdated imagery. Bing is best here. Would you please take a look at the area just west of osm.org/way/1263119636 and make sure it lines up to Bing?

Thanks,

Elliott

Hi there. I'd just recently surveyed the new roadway alignments at the eastern side of the Key Bridge. I'm not sure who did it, but a lot of the roads have been mapped to outdated imagery. Bing is best here. Would you please take a look at the area just west of osm.org/way/1263119636 and make sure it lines up to Bing?

Thanks,

Elliott

Hi there. I'd just recently surveyed the new roadway alignments at the eastern side of the Key Bridge. I'm not sure who did it, but a lot of the roads have been mapped to outdated imagery. Bing is best here. Would you please take a look at the area just west of osm.org/way/1263119636 and make sure it lines up to Bing?

Thanks,

Elliott

Mashin,

It is fine to leave the trail names even if you've added a relation. I find it destructive and counter productive to remove them. Here are some precedential examples:

1. [Queen's Loop @ Bryce Canyon NP](osm.org/way/650406545). The most popular hiking trail in the United States.
2. [Angels Landing Trail @ Zion NP](osm.org/way/14326868). Second most popular in the US. Includes a similar named route.
3. [Appalachin Trail @ Vermont](osm.org/way/149171259) The AT hopefully needs no introduction. Looking at the VT relations most are named.

> This is actually quite common way of mapping hiking routes and makes the data more tidy.

This is not common in my experience and sure it is a more normalized but tidy data is not always to the most usable. I value usable data over clean data.

For every map that uses relations, there is another that doesn't. Please refrain from removing names from trails until there is consensus on the topic. Join the conversation on the OSM community forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/trails-use-name-and-or-hiking-route/110106

Thank you,
Elliott Plack
Data Working Group
OSMF

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 147119025, 147397568, 147397714.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 147515477 where the changeset comment is: reverting vandalism to US Capitol and nonsense edits adding parks where none exist

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 147515477 where the changeset comment is: reverting vandalism to US Capitol and nonsense edits adding parks where none exist

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 147515477 where the changeset comment is: reverting vandalism to US Capitol and nonsense edits adding parks where none exist

Agreed here, Andrew. It is common to use both ways for routability and area for cartographic precision. Both have a value. The data consumer can choose what to show/emphasize.

Should be fixed, please review. osm.org/changeset/147192245

uh oh, sure I'll fix them. Odd that it passed all the josm checks that usually look at affected relations.

This one is interesting to me based on my time at the county. We had researched this and found it was a public road right to the end, paid for by taxpayers. It is on a public snow plow route. Did the gate look official?

Right, I saw that you had reverted and then wanted to know if you had discussed this as an import anywhere. I saw you have proposed an address import (which looked great) but these mass changes would also require some discussion. There is plenty of precedent for importing/adding CDPs (I've done it myself) but we do have a process for these things.

Cheers,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Whammo, what happened here? CDP imports are difficult because of the need to conflate/fix existing data. I suggest a discussion on the OSM community forum to find the best method of doing this. Others with experience can help.

Hi there! According to both of the wiki links that you've added, St. Mary's City is not an incorporated city. It is right in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article. Do you know this to be incorrect and could you send some documentation?

Very good. Thank you for looking into it.

hey there, question about osm.org/way/345325942

A few years back you'd marked it as no pedestrians allowed. Is that accuracte. It certainly looks to be a horse trail (bridleway) but I don't see anything from NPS saying if peds are expressly prohibited. Thanks!

DWG is tracking this one Ticket#2023110710000182

osm.org/way/92938534

hi there, elliott here from the DWG. Would you happen to know if this track specifically allows or forbids bikes to access it?