Some of the changes being discussed here have been modified here osm.org/changeset/152005125

Hi there, these new roads look like part of a subdivision. Would they be better tagged as residential?

Thanks for the mapping here!! One comment would be the bleachers at Unitas Stadium. I visited the main grandstand recently and think it is better tagged as osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Dgrandstand because there is an indoor portion where the club level is, with an elevator etc. What do you think?

No worries! It is a nuanced differential

Hi Oretty, I received your DWG ticket. Nice work on the edits so far. We'll get your limit raised. One comment for this change is to use the natural=woods for this sort of 'forest'. In OSM parlance, a forest is a managed stand for timber or something like that.

thanks for the fix Aleksa. This edit you fixed was the result of vandalism to the map by Pokemon Go editors. Please be on the lookout for these edits as you work to fix coastlines. They are adding `natural=coastline` in places where there are not any coastline and adding beaches. Please see this thread for more info: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/beware-of-fake-beaches-pokemon-go/112413

In this case the water had the pond tag before. Can you look back at the history and restore? Otherwise feel free to write us data@osmfoundation.org

Elliott Plack
Member, Data Working Group
OpenStreetMap Foundation

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 151211757, 151214716, 151235269, 151243280.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151265136 where the changeset comment is: Ticket#2024051310000288

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151265136 where the changeset comment is: Ticket#2024051310000288

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151265136 where the changeset comment is: Ticket#2024051310000288

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151265136 where the changeset comment is: Ticket#2024051310000288

Block issued. Please respond here or via the ticket number listed. osm.org/user_blocks/16033

Resolved via osm.org/changeset/150861776

Again, unacceptable, see osm.org/user_blocks/15408

This is an unacceptable changeset comment. Did you read the article I posted on your block? osm.org/user_blocks/15408

I love this geology editing! Please do more :)

Very good, thank you! I see you've completed the edits. While you're at it, what are your thoughts on the motorway portions of MD 4 and MD 4, both in the vicinity just east of here. All of these routes serve as high volume connectors getting suburban commuters to DC and beyond. MD 4 does have some limited access sections but it currently looks to be an isolated motorway.

Hi Joseph, thanks for your work on highways around the region. At this time I don't think we can consider MD 210 a limited access motorway. Bicycle are still allowed and are encouraged on the shoulders via the recent installation of several bicycle-only access points:

- osm.org/way/1273822411
- osm.org/way/1273822413
- osm.org/way/1273822426

Although I don't think I would enjoy bike riding around on 210 near the beltway, it is allowed. Pedestrians are also permitted on the shoulders. Would you be opposed to rolling this back to Trunk?

Hi MNCPPC team, in this edit you have overidden a local user's survey of a recently demolished building. osm.org/way/616949487/history/3

This building is no longer extant. Can you take a look at the process for reviewing demolished buildings?

welcome back!