Just a note on trunk updates. Trunk assumes bike and foot = no in some jurisdictions. When upping something to Trunk and if those non-car modes are allowed, update the access accordingly.

Sounds good. I have a tracking spreadsheet of all the cities and places in the state to track if they've been done. This work is helpful to that end. Let me know if you'd like a link to it.

Sparks, if you're updating these admin boundaries, would you mind updating the Source tag on ones you've already fixed? I add the same source tag to the boundary and the relation: Maryland Department of Planning 2019-08-02 via https://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-political-boundaries-municipal-boundaries

I can take a look, these census boundaries are often wonky.

Same rule applies for the natural surface trails at Woodbrook:

Hi there, in OSM a cycleway is generally a paved, urban path dedicated exclusively to bicycles. Natural surface trails like this should not be tagged as a cycleway, they should be tagged as a path. You can update bicycle (and foot) to yes or no according to signs on the ground. Occasionally you'll see a trail that does not allow bikes, so you'd add bicycle=no there. This is all detailed here: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway

Also, be aware that for routing purposes, bicycle=yes is assumed for highway=path as is foot=yes. Cheers!

Hi there, in OSM a cycleway is generally a paved, urban path dedicated exclusively to bicycles. Natural surface trails like this should not be tagged as a cycleway, they should be tagged as a path. You can update bicycle (and foot) to yes or no according to signs on the ground. Occasionally you'll see a trail that does not allow bikes, so you'd add bicycle=no there. This is all detailed here: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway

Also, be aware that for routing purposes, bicycle=yes is assumed for highway=path as is foot=yes. Cheers!

Looks like another throwaway account used to intentionally damage the map. With no response or activity in 5 months, I've rolled this one back osm.org/changeset/111943578

One of the changes to a park indicates a high likelihood this is yet another "landuse mapper" that disagrees with American landuse standards.

Hey there! By local convention, people tend to add woods trails paths as highway=path, while a footway is thought of more as a sidewalk sort of thing. This is, of course, a subject of great debate but I wouldn't bother swapping the tag without really improving the data beyond that. I work for the landowner of these trails and we tag them as paths per our guidelines. There is a new Trails workgroup forming to look at standards like this for a national standard. Get involved here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL3x0PtM8N0G2AzrRC7QcMCM5SWl70-5iPXwPJh0_8wH9djQ/viewform

Hey, if it is a legal boundary that is fine and pretty common when the boundary was added after something was already there. For the CDP boundaries they don't really matter and shouldn't really cut off homes. Ideally they'd be snapped to roads or streams.

And, if I updated it to trunk (I forget) apologies, no shade meant. I suggest you make it trunk up to Salisbury either way :)

What was the issue? It looks like you've updated it all to trunk, right? According to the (still work in progress) guideline, trunk should connect two regional cities of importance when an interstate freeway is not available. In this case I would extent the Trunk designation all the way up to Salisbury. The physical characteristics of the road don't matter, though the dualized part could be tagged as a motorroad=yes

Some years ago I did a cool run where I ran the length of Cabin John from Clara Barton up towards North Bethesda. That was so fun! Are there some other SVPs with a trail that runs up the spine?

Nice work here. The more tedious effort is merging them, which I am doing via JOSM as I can.

Hi there. This edit deleted a protected area of public land that TPC leases from the government.

Forgot to add MNCPPC as a source

Hi there, was there a reason to modify the columbia pipeline here?

Hi there. the edits to the course here look great, mostly, but there is an issue with way trees are mapped. Trees should be mapped with the natural=tree tag, not natural=wood. The latter is for polygon areas of tree cover, the former for individual trees. Also, I would consider adding the golf paths as single lines, in addition to the area highways. Thanks!

Assuming it is not a shared use path, then the foot=no should be added to the bike path. Routing engines in the USA assume a cycleway allows foot traffic osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_States_of_America

I made some minor tagging tweaks here osm.org/way/931223087#map=17/40.70624/-73.99693

Since you're not on OSM US slack yet (we're discussing here on #local-newyorkstate) https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CJ4QKU40H/p1631849526014300