Tom, I wanted to say hello and welcome to the OSM project! I see you've been busy mapping trails at PVSP, and around the area. I appreciate that work as a frequent trail user and mapper. Keep it up!

I noticed some issue with this particular changeset that I wanted to let you know about so you can improve your mapping. Here you've deleted 3 trails (BZD, Not Drugs, and the lower part of Buzzard) because they're closed. But, that is not the convention for closing trails (or roads for that matter) on OSM. instead, you should mark them as access=no. That way, someone else doesn't come along and add them back when they notice a trail on the aerials.

Also, and not really an issue with this edit, but when using GPX as a source, recognize that GPS data can be imprecise, and usually is when deep in the woods. I like to use the GPX as a reference, but rely on aerials or LiDAR to get the precision. I'm happy to share some tips for trail mapping and coordinate on some areas I've been meaning to get to.

Thanks,
Elliott

Hi there, and welcome to the OpenStreetMap project. I see you are trying to mark private property in Oella, but you've inadvertently covered a bunch of land with water. Tell me what you're trying to accomplish here? I see you've removed a private trail that looks like it does not exist--that's fine. But adding trees with private property notes is not. Let me help. Thanks!

Here is the changeset where I split up the areas into sub-units, five years ago: osm.org/changeset/38457685#map=11/39.2766/-76.8279

At the time, the boundary=protected_area tagging was still relatively new. Now that it is well formed, it makes more sense to tag the overall boundary this way, and to remove the arbitrary sub-unit splits from protected area tagging.

After five years and many edits, I've reunited the park under one protected area. The individual sections are still preserved, but each one does not have the protected area tags because they would be duplicative. See osm.org/relation/12250276#map=12/39.2774/-76.8204

Hello there. There are a lot of unexplained deletions in this changeset. Perhaps these were warranted but without much context in your comment, it is hard to determine what was deleted and why. Please refrain from using a generic comment like "massive cleanup". If you look at my edit history, almost no two changeset comments are the same. It is also helpful to break up changesets into smaller clusters so you don't need to say "massive" anywhere in the comment. You could, say,. break it up by local areas like 'cleaned up old golf course holes at Fort Meade' and do a lot better with the community.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97626437

Please review osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands for landuse tagging of protected lands.

Hi there, There are a lot of non-standard landuse changes in this dataset. Any reason you've removed boundaries and changed parks to other land uses without gathering any sort of local consensus? I see your edits are all over the globe. Locals here in Maryland (and across the US) have a method for mapping parks and protected lands that is well documented on the wiki and these edits go against that. What were your motivations, if any, of these edits, such a removing the park tag from parks?

Looks good here, thanks for fixing all these! Related changeset comments here: osm.org/changeset/80153952#map=19/39.50097/-76.67446

@user_5359 that boundary looks wrong. This looks like one of the 'for profit' golf mappers we've been seeing. @Jay any comment here? The course looks beautiful, but the boundary here is an issue, as is the naming of all the hazards. See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

Nice work on adding all these trails in detail!! I do a lot of trail and open space mapping and came across the Columbia area recently. I just added the public land boundaries around the area where these trails are. Howard County calls the park "Wincopin Trails" so I named it that. Let me know if local convention uses a different name. There was a fixme on the name.

Thanks for that link, interesting. That is quite a study. I think I know which project website you're referring to. We have a new project portal but not everything made the crossover. Here's the Alternative 4 that is probably what you traced. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14TEgbG-Bgsh2Nw05rP56FquYZg5Sfeyq/view?usp=sharing

According to what I've gathered, a late design change resulted in a slightly different configuration at the very southern end (at I-68). They also seemed to have elongated the circle. We're sending crews out to survey everything this week and will gather some better linework. In the meantime, if you're interested, you can probably nix the loopy ramp that wasn't built and adjust the lines based on Maxar. I'm also not exactly certain as to what parts are open but know that some parts are.

Thanks!

Quick OSM update: I added another link that's visible on newer imagery and added a construction area for annotation. osm.org/changeset/96996046

Greetings Roadsguy. Thanks for adding these construction ways for the new US 219 project! I'm writing both as a project coordinator/consultant for MDOT SHA and an active OSM mapper.

Where did you get the source data for these edits? Was it an FHWA/AASHTO submission or something like that? I am asking because SHA wants to coordinate with map data providers (OSM included) about updates to our highways around the state. We'd want to provide GIS linework for those items, thus my curiosity is piqued on how you found this data in 2018. It looks great by the way (no negativity implied here!!)

Thanks again,

Elliott R. Plack
Sr. Business Analyst (Consultant)
Office of Information Technology
Enterprise Information Systems, GIS Team
M.S. Applied Information Technology
(410) 545-0415
eplack@mdot.maryland.gov
MDOT GIS Open Data Portal

nice work retagging this. The user that made the edit got a block for that. I'm cleaning up elsewhere. Be on the lookout for that kind of thing.

Adam, a new user just altered the park you've edited, changing the tagging. Do you agree with the removal of the park tag? Have a look at osm.org/user_blocks/4667 and https://osmcha.org/changesets/96721540/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/80512229

These are not totally honest and accurate changes unfortunately. The problem here is using the recreation ground and access=yes tags on school grounds is disingenuous. School fields are typically public after school hours. The school grounds are not named things like "Southeast HIgh School Recreation Grounds". They are not named anything. (that one in particular isn't even on the SE high school property).

Adding the pitches is great, don't get me wrong, but don't imply they're publicly accessible when they're not. You can, I guess, add the recreation ground on top of the school ground but just don't give it a name unless it is really named that (with a sign or on some official document). All the detail is great, but don't alter the access without putting conditions on them (like access=permissive)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95882458

Looking further, I see you rolled back a bunch of changed I just added yesterday based on ground survey. You've removed the works tag from several plants in Cockeysville. Did you see these plants yourself to justify removing the works tag? Per the wiki these are well defined as works. osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dworks
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96674514

Hello there and welcome to OSM. The edits you've made here to several land uses in the Baltimore County area go against local custom. The land use is defined by the local government and we map the land use to the edge of the property boundary. What you're mapping is effectively land cover, e.g. what the land is covered by. In OSM we map what can be verified. I've personally verified the edges of many of these properties and use cadastral data to do so. Please do not alter these without checking the sources, and making a comment on the changeset. These edits are often meticulously researched and surveyed in person. On the areas you changed is one that I am sitting in right now, so I know what the land use is. The use of "zoning" tags, which are not recognized by anyone, is inaccurate too. The zoning of Baltimore County is complex and does not typically follow the parcel boundaries. It is also impossible observe.

Hello there and welcome to OpenStreetMap!! This is no import. As the source indicates I used lidar, imagery, parcel boundaries (a map service), and survey to trace the various landuses around Hunt Valley, MD, US. The local custom is to snap the landuse residential, commercial, and nature reserve to their parcel/legal boundaries which are observable/verifiable with a metal detector or ground truthing. I add the nature reserves around protected areas in my county, which are owned publicly or by a neighborhood association and are generally reserved for public use.

looks good!