osm.org/changeset/108646867#map=14/39.1834/-77.0549

I've performed the merge. Lots of the residential and school areas now overlap the park, because I got the latest park boundaries in the process. Those should be corrected, e.g. move residential area so it doesn't overlap the park. Consider the park boundaries authoritative straight from MNCPPC

Holy Cow!!

https://mcatlas.org/parks/?find=P42&extent=-8583510.4524%2C4740197.8213%2C-8568624.3411%2C4753946.9318%2C102100

Probably can merge them all into one area. I imported that data almost ten years ago. I bet MNCPPC has a better naming system now.

Don't be surprised if a random throwaway account comes and removed the leisure=park tag and changes it to something else. It has been a real battle :) osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark#Mapping_history_in_the_USA

See sheet 3: https://gis.baltimorecity.gov/zoning/blockplats/3499.pdf

Speaking of which, do you think the zoo should be removed from the park (set to inner?) The zoo is not publicly accessible without paying a fee, and is 100% fenced. I've been many times, its a nice zoo, but have thought about removing it from the park MP. Recently I've been working on a project to recategorize large state parks from park to nature_reserve and have thought about this in the city. Gwynn Falls is more of a candidate for that treatment though, as is the back part of Druid. Either way, I think it'd be more right to show the zoo outside of the 'green' area.

Also, I'm about to pop out a small inner piece from the park that I noticed on the code map is not publicly owned, there's a tiny parcel that someone paid $2M for inside the zoo for what looks like some sort of animal hospital facility.

Someone at Rec&Parks has hand manicured the park data there, and at other sites, if you look closely at the data geometry vs what's in the parcel database. I like to refer to the city's CodeMap to verify ownership of public property (Green on there) and other things and if you look there, the parcel doesn't remove the roads. It begs the question though on what is exempt and what is not. Greenspring Ave for instance is still not exempted. This gets into the old OSM debate over landuse mapping and what's legal vs what is observable. I think what we have here at Druid now is probably fine. I personally wouldn't change it back.

By local custom the areas where streets go through a park are not typically 'exempted' from the polygon like you would have in a parcel based dataset. I think of OSM as more of an abstraction in that regard. Sure DOT owns the lane where 83 or 29th is but the little multipolygons add some complexity to the map that may be unneeded. What do you think?

Do you have a source for the JFT Roland Ave route? Was that one I made? I can't find it listed on the official city map as a route, but the route wayfinding can leave some things to be desired too.

In addition to using out of date information, this changeset uses the wrong addr:state format. addr:state should use the two letter abbreviation, i.e. "MD" per the wiki osm.wiki/Key:addr:state?uselang=en

The campus map information cited over 12 years old, from 2009. Please Revert, as John suggested. The current map can be found here: https://maps.umd.edu/map/

Thank you I saw that yesterday as well and meant to update it back to parking aisle so I appreciate the update. I even snapped a photo of the lot restriction to put in OSM :D

https://www.strava.com/activities/5623116671

The montebello case is a special one with the COVID-19 related closures. The city had converted a number of streets to "slow streets" and closed them but the program was not popular and all of the restrictions have been lifted EXCEPT for Lake Montebello. There has always been a segregated section of that road for recreation but there used to be a section open to cars. Now that is closed to cars so we've got effectively two parallel cycleway/path loops. That may change once the Harford Road bridge is reopened... TBD.

For these slipways, I've raised the question on Slack and added some photos. I'm thinking it would be better to go back to the way you had it before, but I'd love to see what the community thinks. https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1626287506192400

This raised a good question that I thought to ask some colleagues at DOT what the intended use is. I'd thought cycleway based on how a similar thing was done here, near the Maryland Ave Track. I believe the goal is traffic calming either way. If we went back with some sort of road feature, I'd mark it as hgv=no and all the rest, but I don't know enough about data users to know if they'd respect those. We could ask some of the local Lyft and Amazon mappers to weigh in. Here's example: osm.org/way/461263392

Nice! What do you think about switching those slipramps to cycleway? That helps a bit with our PeopleForBikes score and is essentially what the ramps are now. It is assumed that all motorized modes are prohibited now, rather than having it be a link. I made the change based on how I recall it last time I rolled through there, see what you think. I'm taking the track home tonight and will take a look again.

I just updated all of the sites and added various attributes (like picnic table and such)

Hey I was just here today and looking at these sites. Nice edit here. Do you think the loop sites (camp pitches) should be capitalized? e.g. a19 --> A19

Cool, I figured nothing ill will intended. Do you know if NPS has a similar site assignment of its sites deeper in the park?

Hey Sparks! I see you removed the campsite tag from a lot of things in this changeset. I was just down at the park today and saw how all the RV sites are. Those shouldn't be tagged as campsites but rather this: osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_pitch

I just learned of this tag today. The RV park should be tagged differently too. What do you think?