I feel ya, no worries. I've been working on other things too.

If you want to go HAM with the art as a project, you can refer to this airtable: https://airtable.com/shrA5X2E2zGry6yV6/tbllZKrFysTV8XVzp

I started doing some of it, there's a lot though osm.org/node/7823645378

I have a dataset of murals in the city I'd love to map. Only comment here is that I believe they're best tagged as a point on the way, like this one below, since the wiki says they should be a point only.

osm.org/node/7472578437

osm.wiki/Tag:artwork%20type=mural

Getting bored of our neighborhood project? Almost to the finish line!

Hi M86! I work for MDOT State Highway Administration (eplack@mdot.maryland.gov) and we're responsible for the inventory and maintenance of park & rides in Maryland. By adding this to OSM, you've done us a great service because it already appears on some maps we use. Thank you!! We just sent a crew out today to take some measurements. I'll update OSM with as much as I can from that collection. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. -Elliott

I've fixed this issue by rolling back the changeset. Please do not add separate ways for turns/ramps/etc that are only separated by paint. There needs to be a median for a separate way.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105858879

Iosgino: please be careful working around intersections like this with turn restrictions. This edit broke the turn restriction. Data users that use OSM data for routing can break this way.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105858879

iosgino: MD-795 is an unsigned route. We do not add the ref shield to unsigned routes in Maryland. MDOT SHA (for which I work) has a plethora of unsigned routes like MD 795. We don't add them to the map because they would confuse the traveling public because they'd look for a sign for MD 795 based on turn-by-turn directions. Such a sign does not exist. Thus, that reference should be added as an unsigned_ref

iosgino, please do not convert ramps (motorway_link) to regular highways without discussing with the local community. The ramps are set this way per community standards and are in use by a variety of data consumers. The last edit I made reverted your previous change to the ramps (for which you were blocked by the OSM DWG).

If it is in the Census 2020 place file than we can add it back no problem. It should be if it is still incorporated.

This appears to have deleted a township relation that CityStrides has flagged as needing a fix (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F9eB2cteelcdHXMTmMuXg4dIp_lkHWopKajzhJnhCpw/edit#gid=1175818776 )

Perhaps the relation was wiped in error? Just trying to help out with that list.

Hey there, remember what we just discussed in osm.org/user_blocks/5081 about meaningful comments? In this case, perhaps you could say, 'removed service road due to new construction.' That'd be a great comment. And no one will second guess these edits :)

I took care of the buildings. The copy paste is necessary because it creates a flag on bad changeset comments. If you follow the terms of the block you recieved from the DWG, you should not run into any trouble. One thing you can do to avoid trouble is instead of deleting stuff when there's a construction change, change the lifecycle prefix to something that tells other mappers (who may be looking at some other imagery) that this thing is recently deleted. Try this: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

In one of these "massive cleanup" changes you'd removed a construction area where the work was complete. Instead of deleting, why not change the landuse to residential, commercial, or otherwise? That is why the construction landuse has a tag for the construction type.

As a courtesy to other mappers, I try to avoid deleting anything they've done. You can do the same with lifecycle prefixes and repurposing of items.

Hi Wolfgang! I did check for intersects when I was doing this work, using manually, but I may have missed some basins Phil has added due to the landuse tagging somehow. I think it is mostly good data, but if there are some areas needing clean up let me know.

Hey Phil! I havent seen you active much on OSM anymore but wondering if you have any local insight on the roads in the Red Run Stream Valley area now being completely closed to cars. Pleasant Valley seems to be. What do you know?

Hey there, thanks for adding this industrial area! For future landuse work like this, by local convention, please avoid snapping the landuse nodes to roads or railroads. Those areas could be better tagged with a railroad/highway landuse, or in this case, continue underneath the bridge. Cheers! -Elliott

Anastasia, great to hear it is fixed and thanks for the kind words! I will pay attention to those routing feature more, now that it is in heavy use by commercial entities like Lyft.

How do you feel about Trunk roads? I have been pondering a Waze style systemic classification of routes based on function class. Professionally, I'm with Maryland Department of Transportation--we maintain the FC data for the state, on behalf of the FHWA, so I recognize how OSM roads are sometimes based on subjectivity rather than gov't data. This of course affects routing.

Another thing you could look at for me is Boston Street in Canton (link at end). I saw either Lyft or Amazon made it a dual carriageway on a section where there is no median. I fixed it, but the turn lanes could use some updating. Could you make the updates and then I'll see your edit and know how to do that in the future. Thanks!!

osm.org/way/453444637

Alright, I fixed the relation by simplifying with just this way joining the parts that make up the boundary. Please confirm this way is not routable by Lyft: osm.org/way/949794714

Hey there! I love to see these Lyft edits to the map, as a former Lyft driver and big OSM advocate. Thank you for the work. Two things: 1, I'm working on these CDP boundaries and this one is agreeably messed up. The standard is to connect non-intersecting roads that make up a boundary with an untagged way that is part of the relation. This one is set to intersect leading to impossible turns. I will attempt to fix in moment, but please let me know if it is still broken.

That leads to section 2: If there is anyway I can help Lyft in making edits, let me know (in general). Lane counts, restrictions, stuff like that, tell me what is useful to add/maintain? I think it is important to make the roads more logical and useful for routing!

Hey Duga, I've been working on updating the CDP boundaries from 2000 version to 2020 so I'm gradually getting rid of these older boundary lines. There might be some broken in the interim, not to worry though, they'll all be handled.