Sounds good! Glad I could help. I was out jogging these alleys and verified a few more. In fact, a found a brand new alley not previously mapped at all. A rare find! osm.org/way/1421761738

The plats can indeed be helpful.

Hi Adam,

Are you a Wandrer user by chance? The sidewalk here is not “unnecessary.” Wandrer counts sidewalks in parks, and that is acceptable. Removing correct data to suit a specific app or renderer is prohibited by OSM good practice. These edits will be reverted.

Sidewalk mapping is well-tolerated and widely accepted in the OSM community. Please map what is on the ground, not for a specific data consumer.

— Elliott
OSM Foundation Data Working Group

Hi there. some of these underground powerlines follow a point to point path that almost certainly is not how those are tunneled. Have you verified where the wires run? If you have not observed them, we can't have them running underneath the city as a 'guess'.

Thanks,

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group
OpenStreetMap Foundation

Hi Ian, in these edits did you ride along each alley to verify bicycle=yes? I am finding ones where the alley is private (e.g. osm.org/way/106906228 ), so therefore access cannot be 'yes'. A fundamental concept of OSM is observability and on-ground verification of edits.

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