Boopington, despite my warning in a recent changeset, you chose to add yet another unrelated, meaningless comment here that is about the same as all of your recent comments. Please refrain from repeating changeset comments, they should be unique. Please review the wiki here: osm.org/user_blocks/5515

- Elliott
OSM Data Working Group

Boopington, you are incorrect here, a greenway can be mapped as a park if the land is indeed a park. There are many examples across the globe of greenways tagged as parks. Here is one example: osm.org/relation/4233353

- Elliott
Data Working Group

Why didn't you comment that on the changeset description then? The things you deleted were set as under construction, thus they do not exist yet, but are planned to be in existence. You should not delete other people's work if it is properly tagged as something that is under construction.

- Elliott
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group

MusLak, Would you please reply to the comment here and refrain from using old/deprecated tagging?

Elliott
OSM Data Working Group

Hi there MusLak,

As ZeLonewolf points out above, some mappers have reached out with feedback on some edits you are making here along the Mississippi River.

Would you please respond to the comments on the following changesets prior to making anymore edits?

osm.org/changeset/114709716
osm.org/changeset/114602310

Kindly,

Elliott Plack
OSM Data Working Group

Boopington,

"tags" is not a good changeset comment. Please review osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments about making good changeset comments. These help other mappers discover your intent with an edit.

See also osm.org/user_blocks/5081

Thanks,
Elliott
OSM Data Working Group

Boopington, in this edit which your only comment is "tags", you deleted a highway marked under construction. You have been blocked in the past for changeset comments that are not good, and this changeset is no exception. Did you review our feedback about good changeset comments before?

osm.org/user_blocks/5081

Please add more info about what a changeset is for.

-Elliott
OSM Data Working Group

Djam, there are some issue with this edit and some others nearby. It looks like you've added multiple highways on top of each other and set just one of them to motorway. What was the intent here?

Thanks,
ElliottPlack
OSM Data Working Group

Hi there, New Carrollton station has had some major changes in recent months. The grass area visible in the Mapbox imagery is gone. Take a look at the Maryland Latest imagery for more recent looks.

Ivan, Thanks for the question. Those are machine tags left over from the source, the PD MNCPPC Data. I will discard them.

Agreed, I’d delete all as spam. According to public records, the 718 address is the one where Affordable Roofing is. However based on the aerial there is no parking there. I think it’s just a home office.

Hi Djam, following up on ZeLonewolf's question here. This section of MD 41 is not recognized by Maryland as an expressway. In fact, there is no access control here, which is required for motorway tagging. Would you mind changing it back to how it was before? The OSM Wiki has a good description of what constitutes an expressway: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway

Looks like a home office sort of location. I would typically use the same criteria for these sorts of businesses as Google Maps, i.e. if it is not publicly accessible location, it should not be mapped as a POI. It if fine to list the mailing address on a website that the business controls but not to list the office location unless there is some sort of show room. This node has the same address and yet a different location, probably the same sort of SEO stuff: osm.org/node/6829598587/history

Thank you!

Hi there, these roads are closed/removed, so they don't need to be edited.

Hey, no worries! Anything is possible, also it could be a case where the editor failed to notify you of a potential break. I appreciate all of the bike/ped related work you do for the community and the care you take. Thank you!

Fixed it here: osm.org/changeset/113868477#map=19/38.88978/-77.01385

Be mindful of route relations when combining paths. This edit broke a section of the East Coast Greenway. Route relations require end to end connectivity so look out for them when working. Here's where the issue occurred: osm.org/node/8398721839

Thank you for this information! I looked at some street view and this does look like a treacherous place to ride or walk, no arguments there. On OSM however, the bicycle=no tag indicates a legal/posted restriction, not that this is dangerous to ride. OpenStreetMap does not currently have a great means of tagging highways where bicycle or pedestrian access is allowed but dangerous or unsafe. It is something the community has discussed over on the OSMUS Slack, bicycle channel https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CKC0HGF4H

I'd encourage your participation if interested.

Looks like a ped/bike bridge is sorely needed here, by the way. I would hope that once opened, SC DOT would mark the bridges as ped/bike prohibited and we could restore the bicycle=no tagging, but for now, absent any legal posted restriction, we've got to keep the bicycle=yes tag.

Here you can see the ECG official map showing the crossing and a recommendation to use caution: https://map.greenway.org/?loc=17,32.78120,-79.96015

Denny, what is the source for the bicycle restriction? The bridges are part of the bicycle route the East Coast Greenway, so bicycle permission is granted by SC DOT. Do you know differently?