I can add the coastline back to the Isle of Wight bay too.

Fixed here: osm.org/changeset/95239563#map=14/39.3553/-76.6287

Hey there, thanks for resolving this, but when editing landuses like this, please be mindful of other overlapping landuse relations. This changeset broke the following relation. I will fix it now, so no worries, just be aware. osm.org/relation/9353389#map=14/39.3450/-76.6294

Got it. Did a homeowner contact the DWG? I'm just curious how the feedback loop works, because I map a lot of trails don't usually get much feedback. I am not opposed to the change at all, glad you did it, just wondering about the process. Thanks!

Hi Marc! I see this change comes via a DWG ticket. Just curious what that one was about? I surveyed the area four years back but did not see any signs about it being private. Certainly that could have changed now though.

Did a little digging here and found the road has been private in OSM for about six years. The surface type is set to gravel, which is more specific than 'unpaved' and that further limits any kind of routing along it. Also interestingly, it is legally named Ruxwood Road, just like the rest of Ruxwood Rd per Baltimore County record plat 52/14 although the county does not sign it. Do you get pass-through traffic along it?

Understood. I live in the neighborhood too. Out of curiosity, what made you decide to edit the road on OSM?

Hi there, Welcome to OSM! I see you've marked this little road as private, but switched it to a path and added some extra tags. What is the source of this info?

Ha, you came across a bunch of my edits importing military areas. At the time there was a protect_class 25 for military, but I see that it has been deprecated. Have you fixed them all or do I need to go and look for some?

To all that are following this changeset, I wanted to point out that there is now an ongoing discussion in the tagging mailing list.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056310.html

I am reviewing that, and the comments here--I haven't forgotten about this.

Thanks for working on this!!

Do the named ways of the relation affect how those apps display the info? See how this coastline has a name? (It was like that before I edited it yesterday) osm.org/way/591823494#map=14/37.8278/-75.4774

I like the idea of having it both ways. That way we could still have this relation and the level of detail around all of the water ways (instead of natural=bay points). Jochen, can you check to see how SF Bay looks on the renderer/data app you are using? I think we can reach an amicable solution for everyone here.

Some of these discussions have taken place on changesets, but mostly in the OSMUS Slack, which I thought was a fine place to have such conversations.

The reason we considered this is because new users kept breaking the coastline by drawing it on arbitrary lines or one ways already covered by water. Some of these users claimed to be coming at it from the MS Flight Simulator use case, but I wonder how it works if they fly over the great lakes in that app. We thought that by simplifying the coastline out where the salt/fresh transfer occurs, we'd prevent these kinds of edits.

Here's one of those changesets. osm.org/changeset/93828561 The user never responded so I went ahead and rolled it back, then started doing it the proper way, setting up water areas for all the named sections of bay.

Jochen, that sounds like an issue with the apps that consume OSM, not the data itself. There are other, larger inland water bodies that are tagged this way, like Lake Michigan, which is 3x as big as the bay. osm.org/relation/1205149

I had removed much of the Chesapeake Bay's tributaries about 4 years ago and no one has said anything yet.

I have read that apps like MS Flight Sim don't recognize water relations, but that'd be tagging for the renderer... The coastline is correct, it follows the bathymetry of the Bay.

Nice work!! I made a few tweaks to the tags and removed a double covered creek up north

Potomac is done. The coastal bays along the VA delmarva coast are insanly complex. osm.org/relation/11880156#map=11/38.2560/-76.7810

That's exactly right. That was the reason we started removing the smaller estuaries from the coastline, so edits to them would show up on the map in a timely fashion. It also helps with cognition of those bodies of water for what they are, instead of big blobs of nothing without a name.

I think the best way would be to start at the Potomac and then work outward, doing big rivers and sub-bays one at a time.

Nice work on this project! Any interest in working more on the Chesapeake, removing it from the coastline? A newish mapper inadvertently broke part of your Eastern Bay relation and I've just finished fixing it. It makes me wonder if converting the whole thing to a water relation might make it easier to maintain.

Hello again, this edit, like the other one in the Chesapeake, inadvertently broke the coastline here. The Indian River Bay is covered by a water relation, and thus does not need to have the coastline cover it as well. The coastline should end on the downstream edge of the water relation. I reverted this changeset and updated the coastline accordingly.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93143748