Thank you, Aleksey! Have a great day.

Hi Aleksey, I came across this edit because I-95, the busiest highway in the United States, does not carry any name between DC and Baltimore. It is simply "I-95" which is reflected in the route ref. Am I to assume this edit is related to Mapbox Mapping teams' support of road navigation? By local custom and OSM standard, names should not be applied to things that are not named. Nearby motorways may have names, e.g. The "Baltimore Washington Parkway" but I-95 most certainly does not. Please roll back this change. This has been discussed previously in OSM US slack (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1629488217256300). See also, osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

I look forward to your response.

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group

Hi, you will not remove it! It is ok to have both. One is for routing, one is for visual representing the full ped path plaza.

Hey there, looks like you dropped the name from the trail. Was that intentional? Although the name of the trail is also on the relation, it is still appropriate and conventional to add the name of the trail to the path itself, as many viewers (and editors) do not see the relations or understand them.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/no=yes

We also have yes=no 🤔

The interpolation work here was pre-import of buildings. 10 years ago, holy cow!

Oh, you could be right! I was looking for a good fit too but there isn’t a great “landuse”=governmental. If you look in Berlin or something they have the govt offices but USDA is so big it doesn’t really fit that. I’m fine if you want to just remove it. Maybe it’s a nature reserve?

love this! Please import them all. I will support you on this full stop. We can work on the proposal if you'd like.

Nice catch! so the one part of Walther is still closed?

Thank you for working on my challenge! I see you have completed all of these. Great work.

No problem, I am just doing a little investigating here to see if I can trace it back to a source, then we can update that. In the meantime, yes there are a few great MTB resources on OSM's wiki. In short, mtb=yes is used on paths that are MTB suitable...

- - osm.wiki/Mountain_biking#How_to_tag_ways_appropriate_for_mtbiking
- osm.wiki/Key:mtb

Cheers,
Elliott

I took a look at my old run through and see where the issue is. At some point the track was merged with a larger trail. Only the straightaway section that comes off DV Rd is a track, the rest is path. It is important because horses are only allowed on the track sections.

As for the path tag, it is the preferred tag for woods paths/trails, whereas footway is meant for pedestrian features near road. There is a lot of nuance to that, I apologize, but it is well known/documented. I fixed the one section of track and left the rest alone here.

Hi there, this edit removed a designated trail name and converted a track to a path. This goes against the local convention for highway=track in Baltimore City reservoir property. Any fire road should be tagged as a track. The use of footway is discouraged for any off-street path. Please review osm.wiki/Maryland/Baltimore_Reservoir_Watersheds before mapping in the watersheds.

Hi there, I see you changed the access tag of your own trail here from bicycle=yes to bicycle=mtb. The MTB tag is not documented (that I can find) and so I am not entirely sure what it means. Can you tell me, did you read somewhere that you should enter mtb trails this way? Thanks!

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hello there. The DWG received a complaint about this mass deletion of trails. How can you be sure the data was copied directly from TF, and not the reverse? I see the the source for the trails included a GPX file as the source. Further, I can see there is evidence of trails there on Strava's heatmap, which is an allowable source for OSM. Therefore, they do not exist "only" in Trailforks, but also Strava. I find it unlikely that a trail in both of those sites does not actually exist on the ground, unless it was physically closed. In the case of a trail being physically closed, it is best not to delete and instead mark it as closed.

Additionally, I saw you'd changed a footway that was marked as no bikes/horse, to a path with those access restrictions lifted. The person that originally added that information, did they do that in error?

Please help us understand why these trails were all deleted en masse. In the future, if you think something "cannot be included in OSM", you should reach out to the DWG first, so we could avoid all of this.

Thanks,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group
data@openstreetmap.org

Hello there. In this changeset, I see you are adding mountain bike routes and trails, which is great. However, the bicycle=mtb tag is not one that I can find any documentation for in the wiki. I think you are meaning to use the mtb=* access tag. MTB access is handled separate from regular bicycle access in OSM. The same applies for E-Bikes.

Have a look at these wiki articles before adding more MTB routes:

- osm.wiki/Mountain_biking#How_to_tag_ways_appropriate_for_mtbiking
- osm.wiki/Key:mtb

Please confirm, and thank you,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

No one should mind, no. If they do, mention this changeset thread. You can take as much time as you’d like. Add notes/fixmes if something is too complicated.

Ah nuts, no good way to automatically consolidate them. You could pick the best and delete the others. I can take a look too.

It is for verification of the turn restriction. What is the point of you questioning this?