FYI, a new mapper has made some edits at Bulle Rock roads that seem to break local norms. Can you take a look? osm.org/changeset/114853414

Hi there, and welcome to OSM. In this changeset you've made a couple errors that we need to resolve.

1. The golf=path is not an approved or recognized tag by other mappers
2. foot=designated is innaproprite for golf paths. That would mean walkers/runners could use the paths any time. That is not the case in any golf course, they typically prohibit pedestrians. These should be foot=private.
3. Don't change residential roads to service (a downgrade) without discussing with other mappers in changeset comments. That sort of thing can be disruptive to other.

See osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls for more info

Let me know you've received this and will work to make the needed updates, or if you have any questions in the next few days. Otherwise we'll have to roll back this work.

Thanks,

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114853414

DWH,

I agree with WoodWoseWulf here, this star shaped building seems unlikely. Please respond here.

WoodWoseWulf,

If you do the revert, please email data@openstreetmap.org and mention Ticket#2021121510000141 in the subject line, as we're tracking this issue as well.

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Looks good Marc
- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Thanks, Greg! Yes, you can also use the filters in iD to hide landuse. at the bottom of the "Map Features" tab in the editor there is a box to hide any landuse so as not to get in the way of mapping.

Hi there, these edits look good, but just a friendly reminder to leave a good changeset comment. Read more here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114864693

UPR: Any reason you removed the residential and retail landuse around Miesville? These look like good landuses to me.

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Hi there NorthwestPAmapper / urbanexplorerman

Please do not delete driveways just because doing so would make it easier to update a road. You have been blocked before (osm.org/user_blocks/5366) for deleting items like this. Before resuming mapping, we'll need you to restore the removed driveways that jleedev mentioned above.

- Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there,

Please be more detailed in your changeset comments. Instead of saying "fixed tags" everything, put in a few more words describing what you did, where, and why. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

For instance, in this changeset, you removed the tagging of a store from a building and added it to a node. Why did you do that? If the building is only one store, as this appears to be, than it is perfectly okay to apply that tag to the building, rather than on a separate node. Read more: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thanks,
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Reverted this changeset in full: osm.org/changeset/114766197

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.