This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 144121471 where the changeset comment is: reverting nonsense maps.me edits Ticket#2023101310000047

Hi there, there does not appear to be any apartments as this location. Could you please help me understand the intent of this edit?

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139646798

25,000!! Congratulations on the milestone. I appreciate your dedication to the project and to the DWG.

Understood, thank you! Sounds like an honest mistake. I believe another local mapper is going to handle the removal—I wouldn’t revert it directly since the relation has been modified many times since this changeset. There is only the one relation here (the one in this changeset). Route relations that map the course of contiguous trails is always encouraged and supported! Your edit shows up at version 1 of the relation but perhaps it was created by another user and this is a database error (due to that complexity issue)—if so I do apologize.

Hey there Rsavoye. Thanks for your work around OSM. This relation has come to the attention of the OSM Data Working Group. This sort of relation (adding all the trails in an area) is against OSM consensus-based rules around what a relation should be. Please consult the wiki on the topic: osm.wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

One practical reason to avoid this practice is that it complicates the database. A better way to associate all of the trails in a particular land management area is to use the operator=* and operator:wikidata tag.

Thanks for understanding.

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Thanks for finding that. I was doing SC on the go and must have meant to select an adjacent building (osm.org/way/285901149). I updated the building just now.

Agreed the golf mappers butchered Caves Valley. Please clean it up further if you have time.

Max, is there a problem? I went around the next day and updated all the ones that I could find with SC: osm.org/changeset/139484916

I added the 'paved' tag without surveying a few years ago and after a few spot checks, noticed some of these were not paved so I removed all the armchair mapped surfaces and went in person to make updates. osm.org/changeset/92931437

It can be difficult to determine path type from aerials, as asphalt, concrete, compacted and some gravel can look similar. Better to add these in person.

adjustments look good, thanks for the updates. Was just out there yesterday and noticed a few more.

Hi there, Elliott here with the OSMF Data Working Group. In this changeset you've created a bridle route. This is not how a bridle (horse) route should be created. Adding every horse-related path to a relation and calling it a route so that it shows up on the Waymarked trails is tagging for the renderer and generally disruptive to other mappers and the database. The route relation is for tagging a signed, designated end-to-end route such as this MTB route: osm.org/relation/6627463

Tagging routes the way you are doing is not consistent with the community guidance documented in the wiki. Please the remove this an any route you've mapped this way lest the DWG have to revert all of this work.

Additionally, it is improper and confusing to use the tag `horse=designated` on trails that do not have a sign designating them specifically as horse trails. Have you visited all 500 trails in this changeset here? I have and I can tell you that there is not a single sign indicating that any trail is a horse trail out there. Baltimore City DPW does not generally view the watersheds as recreational areas and signage is minimal on the property. They do have a few designated, signed mountain bike routes however, one of which is linked above. The trails/tracks in those routes are the only ones that could be considered `bicycle=designated`. Otherwise, `horse=yes` is sufficient as horses are indeed allowed.

You seem to be passionate about horse access mapping. That's great--we appreciate passionate mappers. However, please do not bend or break the norms of OSM because a suitable horse access map does not exist.

Thanks for your understanding,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Phil, thanks for the dedication to our parks here! I was just out there this morning. Yesterday while scouting I noticed a one edit user deleted a bunch of the trails or deleted lots of attributes. I've reverted this and issued a warning block. Take a look and see if anything looks amiss following the reversion. Best, Elliott

Greetings PVSP! There are some typos in the operator used in this changeset that I can fix. Is there any documentation for the methodology your team used to put these posts into OSM? It would be helpful to have that so other mappers can understand the reference naming and source of the project.

Hello there. The bridge is still closed according to information online. Are you certain it is open? Construction tape was out there last week.

Thanks for the thought here. Adding relations to another bicycle route relation isn't supported. The way to do this is using a superroute, just fixed it for ya. osm.wiki/Tag:route=bicycle?uselang=en#Split_routes_into_sections

Thanks for the additions!!

Side of the road

EZrouting: please comment as to the status of the shared account issue and where your wiki link is located. Thanks!

thanks!

looks good here. thanks for fixing exazx!

tlt: in this changeset you've added a number of turn lanes where there is no segregation. Turn lanes (slip lanes) should only be added when there is a physical barrier segregating the turning lane from the other lanes. Paint alone does not count. Have a look at osm.wiki/Highway_link and please confirm receipt. Thanks!