Update: I decided not to edit the map here just yet before we finish the discussion here. I did talk to the local GIS office but they point out that parcel data is only a representation and that a surveyor needs to be called in to very the exact positions of boundaries. Since OSM doesn't claim to be "survey grade" in that regard, we can only assume that the way the paths line up here reflect property rights.

Now, as a citizen, I did a little looking at this site and I can see where it appears the trail crosses private property. (I also see where the property owner has installed a basketball court onto the public right of way, effectively commandeering public property.) I think the best option here is to mark this little connector trail as private, but also to suggest to the homeowner to put up no-trespassing signs or a fence because I have a feeling that whether or not the path appears on the map, people know about this connection and will keep using it. And, had there been a sign saying "no trespassing" or private property, I as a responsible mapper would have marked it private from the start.

Sure, I am happy to help! I used to work for said GIS department so I know a few people. I'm actually taking a closer look at this on JOSM using the local parcel data and lidar overlays. When justified, I'm sensitive to private property rights too. On closer inspection I can see how someone would probably intrude upon the owner's private property (assuming it is the owner of address 1225) when using this path. The note above about a public right of way connection is true, however, people appear to be going around an embankment at the end of Brookview Rd and onto the land of 1225. I will make an adjustment in JOSM and mark the trail as access=private since in its current state it would be considered trespassing. The homeowner cannot prevent people from 'going straight' on Brookview, over the embankment, but he can prevent them from going around it. While I'm finding the right people, have a look at this link on the Baltimore County My Neighborhood GIS App. I placed a marker at the location. If you turn on the OSM basemap you can see how the connecting trail does dip down (south) into the property of 1225. https://bcgis.baltimorecountymd.gov/myneighborhood/?marker=-8522186.683%2C4781463.6462%2C102100%2CRight%20of%20Way%20of%20Brookview%20Road%2C%2C&level=19

Hi! That is a ridiculous allegation but not surprising due to a cultural issue people have around here with public parking on public rights of way. The public road Brookview Road is on a parcel owned by the local government here, Baltimore County. That parcel directly abuts there Park property with a 40 ft wide shared boundary. The public has access across this line by definition (of it being all public land). Now, if the people want to petition the county to restrict parking or put up a wall, they could. Perhaps they even have, since this changeset. I checked it out back in 2013 or so and didn’t see any signs to the contrary. I’d add a note to the map here asking a local mapper to go check it out.

Hi there. It appears you've been working on updating the position of roads in this area. That is great work, but two requests. One, add a useful changeset comment saying what you're editing, not just something generic. No two changeset comments should be the same. More here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Second, once the roads are straightened/aligned, delete all the tags with the tiger:* key. specifically deleting tiger:reviewed=no lets people know that someone has reviewed the area. Thanks!

Hello again. Did you see my note on your other changeset (osm.org/changeset/87163529)? Please add some additional context to your changeset comments. Thank you!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87210963

Good day. I see you've used the same comment for all of your last several dozen changeset comments. This is not the way to do it. For the good of the project, please add something descriptive about the type of edits you're making, e.g. "Added and edited woods around Rocks", "Added ponds", etc. Take a look at the wiki on how to write a good comment: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments and feel free to look at my changeset comments for an example.

Good day. Could you explain why you've changed a walking path to a horse path here? The bridleway tag implies only horses are allowed.

Please review osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#How_should_I_write_Changeset_Comments.3F for some examples of how to write a useful changeset comment.

Hello. This does not look like a fence.

Hello there. "fix roads" is not at all descriptive of this changeset. Could you explain a little more about what you're doing here? The use of localities as historic sites is unprecedented for the project. Localities are for mapping places of human settlement, not battlefields. We have a tag for that. While the work here at Gettysburg looks nice on OSM, the purpose of the project is to produce useful data for maps, not to make the openstreetmap homepage look good.

Hello there. Could you be a little more specific in your changeset comments? Every single one has the comment "gettysburg fences" but it doesn't look like you even edited any fences here. Give a few words on what you're doing, e.g. updating roads, adding parking areas, etc. Thanks!

Got it. I just uploaded the changeset osm.org/changeset/86574067

The issue here was that the three islands inside the bay were still tagged with coastline. That was surely causing some error with the coastline. All is good now.

That's the right way. It could be a missing link in the relation or something. I'll take a look and write back.

Sorry for the delay. It looks like it still needs that natural=water tag to show up as water.

The way you had done it (as coastline) is not technically wrong. It was more of a local convention to "switch" these deep coastlines to water multipolygons.

I'd consider adding natural=water and water=river, then naming it as Eastern Bay. It is a "river" in so far as upstream water eventually flows through it. But, since the bay is tidal, all of the rivers that are below the fall line could be considered coastline but they typically set to river.

Typically i'll add natural=bay as a point when the bay is somewhat indiscriminate.

Hi, thanks for your contributions of T.Parker Host locations. In this case, there is already a building on the map here, so I've converted your building to a point of interest. It will soon appear on the map for all to see. What kind of work does T. Parker Host do?

osm.org/node/7603816494

Wikipedia for Eastern Bay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bay

OK, thanks for the explainer here. If you hit a wall with this kind of complex thing (as I often do) feel free to reach out on the OSM US Slack Group.

The original goal here in the Eastern Chesapeake was to add the "eastern bay" as a big multipolygon, rather than a part of the coastline. The coastline, as you may know, is big, complex, and slow to update. We've been encouraged to remove big bays from the coastline to make it easier for mappers to see updates to the water as the rendering happens nearly instantly. I think it's fine to split off the smaller bays from the big eastern bay too. I think it was named Miles River when it should have been Eastern Bay.

Since you've already made a bunch of changes here I don't think we should try reverting this, rather let's just fix it. Want to take a crack at putting the bay features into multipolygons and then removing the coastline from all but the most outer ways?

No, you haven't :) It is missing now. The creation of these bays as relation was done in coordination with the local and international OSM community. What was the problem that you'd hope to fix with these edits?

Hi there, it looks like you've removed one of the bays here and replaced it with coastline but done so improperly, breaking the coastline. Could you explain the reasoning here? We've decided to remove all water except for the main Chesapeake Bay from the coastline to encourage editing.

I like that this changeset has a legal citation.