Interesting, I see you requested review but regrettably, no one has responded yet. I think this looks good (and I've wondered how to add this sort of thing). How do you like how this worked?

Hi Joy, if I understand correctly, you're tracing all the buildings as boxes with no tags and then wanting to tag them all as buildings at the end? If that's the case, you can draw all the boxes then in JOSM:

1. Find (Ctrl F)
2. type 'new untagged type:way closed' (without quotes). This will find all the new closed ways that are not tagged
3. add building tags

For tagging building boxes you've already uploaded but are not tagged yet, you could modify the search to 'untagged type:way closed' to find any closed way (e.g. a square building), and then update those.

Cheers,
Elliott

Aloha! Nice work mapping all these buildings. However, there is a small problem with this edit. All of the nodes on the buildings are also tagged as buildings. I assume this was a mistake. You can fix it easily in JOSM by searching for buildings and then tapping 'E'. That selects all the nodes. Remove the building tags on the nodes. Let me know if you need assistance.

Thanks,

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group

Hi there, what was erroneous about the foot access here?

I see you added a foot=no prohibition to these roads. This tagging is only appropriate if there is a sign posted saying that no pedestrians are allowed here.

Tell me about what you were trying to do here and I can try to help with the community. I see you are a runner, so perhaps this was an edit geared towards removing these roads from CityStrides, StreetFerret, or Wandrer? I'm into those as well, but I also represent the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group where we keep OSM data consistent and to the community's standards. Thanks!

Something seems amiss with this edit. mostly that it crosses the earth. The motorcycle parkings look more like woods. Was that intentional?

meant to say adding some greenery around the APG triangle near the power plant

Hi bgo_eiu, this changeset was flagged due to the presence of an attribute typically associated with an import. What is the source of this fiber data?

I'd ended the contraflow at the crosswalk because that is where it ends though, would you typically extend it to the road in this case? It is sort of a no-mans land for that very short gap between crosswalk and road: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=7172678422807433

Brandon, what brings you to Baltimore for bike map editing? No issues here, just curious.

The DWG has investigated and agrees with eerib. Further, we discovered many attempts to obscure trails here, going back some years. Bookwus is now blocked, as will be all of the related accounts: osm.org/user_blocks/6216

osm.org/changeset/119965285

- Elliott
Data Working Group
OSM Foundation

Mapmaker: excellent! Here is a well written summary of these adoptions by some of the prolific editors in the project.

osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Hi mapmaker, Joseph is right here. The trunk classification has evolved in the US in recent years. I’d encourage you to join the conversation on slack. The new standard for trunk roads in the USA is that they should be classified based on their overall route characteristics, not the individual road characteristics. The only highway type that is fundamentally classified by observable conditions is motorway (limited access, etc). Trunk, primary, and below should be tagged around their connectedness to cities of regional importance where an expressway connection does not exist.

The trunk route here is US 15 and it connects Harrisburg and Frederick. It should be tagged trunk except where it is a motorway. 26 is just fine as primary, as it has been superseded by I 70.

wrong account in JOSM

Boopington, please don't delete things just because they don't appear in imagery. We've been over this many times, especially around your changeset comments. You could have asked the person that added the roads (as I did) instead of deleting them and stating they "do not exist" without yourself verifying first.

Hi there. Elliott here with OSM Data Working Group. Another user deleted this data here: osm.org/changeset/123738022#map=15/32.0176/-81.1839 . Do you have it on good authority that the edits here do exist?

Joseph,

Thank you for this level of detail. And now you see precisely why this is reverted. The issue here is documentation and the proposal process. Asking in OSMUS Slack, discussing with one other person, and then executing this major of a change is not the way to go. I don't remember where the 50,000 rule was established but I have been involved in city classification going back 7+ years and that was the bellwether that I recall.

I applaud your call to classify cities more uniformly and will support your efforts provided I can review and comment. That is the only issue here. If you've never launched a proposal in the lists, I can assist there. Others beyond just the local slack channels will want to participate in the discussion.

Keep me posted!

Thanks,
Elliott

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/124053349. Ref: DWG Ticket: 2022072610000085

Since you've ridden this, also check out the relation which has a funky name that is not the same as what you've streamlined here: osm.org/relation/11101940/history That one may need renaming as well.

Hi there again, Welcome to the project! I'm glad to see you've been updating some bike maps. One comment is that there is no need to name things that don't have a name, social trails are fine to have the "informal=yes" tag and no name. Name should only be what is posted on the ground, on a sign.

Hi there, yes, you may not copy data from other maps into OSM. Especially not from Google. Sources for edits need to be your own surveying, or open-source data, of which Google is not. osm.wiki/How_We_Map See this for more

Thanks,

Elliott
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group