Hello there. I see you've been continually changing this section of 83 from a motorway link to a motorway. Why are you doing this? It is classified as a link because it is an exit ramp from one interstate to another. If you noticed, one of the previous editors cited the wiki. Did you read the article? If you disagree with a tag, please reach out in a comment, don't just change it.

This is definitely more of a 'for fun' edit. The wikidata does have a coordinate location so I think that qualifies, right?

Deleted this one. It is generally safe to remove these unused lines so long as all shared nodes are kept.

Thanks, I took care of it by removing the unused line.

Here's a photo of the signs indicating the closure, if you're interested, taken by me yesterday. https://i.imgur.com/jkYKdlA.jpg

Hey there. I am experimenting a bit with that access:wikidata tag. The idea was to essentially cite that the trail was indeed closed per that wikidata organization. Probably a bit too much of an abstraction though. I didn't add operator:wikidata because the trail is informal and was built illegally, thus not really operated by anyone. The "Closed" in the name is also not customary (access=no handles it). The trail has no posted name at all, but locals call it "Roxy". The intent here is to indicate to would be editors that might change or delete this (as had happened prior to the revert), to not do that. I added the access=no, too. What do you suggest to ensure other mappers don't simply remove the access tag?

This area is something we should discuss further. In OSM there are two concepts for mapping an area. Landuse and Land Cover. Landuse is typically defined by humans, legal boundaries, residential areas, parks, etc. Land cover are natural things, woods, water, grassland. This feature is a wooded area, not a park. It *covers* the park proper, which has well defined boundaries. The green shaded outline delineates the park boundary, and the lite green fill denotes park land but the woods (dark green) is meant to cover wooded parts of the park to show an additional level of detail.

Rolled this one back per our chat this evening. Here you can see the edit with the access tag osm.org/changeset/99009043

Hey there. Did you mean to add amenity = fuel for this line that makes up one of the city boundaries? osm.org/way/41008778 Figured it was a mistake. Thanks!

Awesome! I saw the trailhead of this from the WB&A but never got to ride it. I did add all this protected land to the map around here to help people find where they can explore without trespassing.

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.