Read more: osm.wiki/Naming_conventions

Hi there. I made the update at the request of the DWG on OSMUS slack after they reverted it from someone that’d deleted the whole thing. Thought I was doing you a favor.

As for the tagging, it is a standard based on considerable discussion on slack, the mailing lists, and amongst people that are interested in such things. Please join us.

You’re welcome to change the name to something locals agree on. I took the name from the official source PADUS which is probably where you got the boundaries from. By OSM standards we shouldn’t put acronyms or abbreviations in names, which is why I removed it. Also, names aren’t descriptions, the two part name seems like a descriptive designation but again, I’m not a local.
Cheers

Hi there, appreciate the efforts here to add bicycle lanes and infrastructure around Salisbury, but this is not the way to do it. There are a couple of issues here. One, the cycleway should be tagged on the same roadway as the roadway--you should not ever create a new "way" for a cycleway unless it is a physically separated lane, like a buffered bike lane. osm.wiki/Key:cycleway

You will need to revise or remove all of these bike lanes.

Second, in OSM, we never abbreviate anything. Road names and lane names (if they are really named) should have their full spelled out name.

Third, it is improper and disruptive to other mappers to use a generic comment like "general transportation updates" in the comment. Each changeset should have a unique comment, see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi Scott, appreciate the effort here, but this is not the way to tag neighborhoods unfortunately. Generally, neighborhoods should only appear in OSM data if they are recognized administrative boundaries at the county level. I'm not sure if Montgomery County recognizes neighborhoods this way. Absent a formal boundary, you can still add neighborhoods to OSM a number of ways.

One of the most common is to map the residential landuse and add the name of the neighborhood to the area.

Another way, which can be done in addition to the first way, is to add a node at the center of the neighborhood and use the place=neighbourhood tag. Note the British English spelling. It is recommended to use a node to tag neighborhoods when the boundaries are inexact.

Take a look at the area in Baltimore County near Mays Chapel or Timonium for some examples. Or, look at administrative neighborhoods in Baltimore City. Feel free to send any questions.

-elliott

This changeset comment has nothing to do with changing the tagging for US National Parks. What's going on here?

A crossing could certainly be upgraded from marked to signals based on on-the-ground survey or street view. The developer of Street Complete is on Slack and based on a discussion about this subject, said he would improving the tagging recommendations accordingly.

Peter, hope you're well! MDOT SHA is working on a project to map crosswalks around the state using OpenStreetMap data! Very exciting!! I see you've added some crossings here. When doing so, can you mark them as marked or unmarked? This helps us determine if the crossing is a crosswalk or an opportunity for a future crosswalk. Check out my challenge too: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/21065

Hi Will, I was doing some crosswalk analysis and came across the non-standard crossing=controlled tag here. I assume that was just an error (meant to be uncontrolled?) I updated it to `marked`. Cheers

Hi there. This intersection has been vastly reconfigured just this year by MDOT SHA, the government agency responsible for the road, for which I work. I just fixed this intersection up based on the latest configuration including the addition of turn lanes.

Please do not at segregated turn lanes where there is no physical separation, as is the case here. These "slip" lanes should only be separated if there is a physical barrier separating them. Paint does not count.

Thanks for adding these! Please add some more if you can--very helpful for pedestrian routing.

Ah, yes, this is broken. Admin Boundaries are tricky. They represent where the town limit is. Garrett Park is a town (https://www.garrettparkmd.gov/) so it has a boundary. Those boundaries should not be altered unless the town does some annexation or something like that. I will fix this boundary with the latest boundary data. In general, don't mess with any boundary unless you know what the implications are. Feel free to reach out if you need help with or around them.

Specificially admin boundaries should be set in stone because, well, they are, by law! They are in the place they are and it takes laws and a signature from the governor to move them.

Census boundaries on the other hand are fungible, and change every 10 years with the census. I've been working on updating them around the state since the current boundaries in the map are from 2008. Those I tend to snap to roads and rivers, because their exact boundary is not set by law, more of a guideline.

I am working in the vicinity of Brookville too

I'm with you here. Trying to disconnect the woods from the streets is tough but having them snapped makes editing the roads harder.

Here's an example of how to interconnect the roods, water, and scrubs you can use as a template (esp if you want tobe meticulous about it). Craft mapping! osm.org/changeset/108833862

One comment is to avoid snapping the woods to the road way or edge of the boundaries. I'll look for some written guidance somewhere. It is not a big deal, just something that can make it harder for other mappers down the road. :)

Looking good here!

Here's a good example area at Patapsco: osm.org/#map=16/39.3035/-76.7848

The area does have the green outline showing it as a protected area space. I find it to look good to add woods, scrub, meadow, and grass as applicable. The main thing to avoid is using the protected area line as a shared boundary with the woods/land cover. It is best if those two features stay distinct, that way editors don't have the compunction to move the protected area boundary (which is typically established by law/title) based on a visual change, like a tree cut.

Right, the best way to make those park areas light up on the OSM website is by adding ground cover. Check out Patapsco Valley State Park for instance. The leisure=park tag is designed for small urban parks with manicured lawns, benches, fountains, stuff like that. In the US, we've taken the word "park" and applied it to big swathes of land where the intended reason for buying the land is preservation (with some limited recreation). There's a whole conversation around this and a variety of other OSM related topics on the OpenStreetMap US Slack if you're interesting in discussing. We'd love to have you. Join us on the #protected_lands channel.

Hey there, saw you'd requested some help a while back with Rock Creek Regional Park. I imported the park boundary back in 2013 and it has been adjusted since, far outside of what MNCPPC designates as park/nature reserve land. I just updated the boundaries of both the regional park and the stream valley park, so everything should be good along Rock Creek now. You'll notice the lower portion is no longer "park" in OSM lingo. This is intentional. The US Public Lands wiki details this more, but generally large woody areas that are preserved for conservancy and some occasional recreation should be tagged as nature_reserve rather than Park. The NR areas still appear "green" on most maps that use OSM though, it is more of a landuse technical designation. Cheers, Elliott

osm.org/relation/13023491#map=12/39.0906/-77.1018

osm.org/relation/1086322#map=15/39.1164/-77.1207