Hi, thanks for noticing! On taginfo we can see the material tag picked up after I added this. Do you want to update all these to the new standard? Fine by me! Cheers!

Thanks! It looks like osm.org/node/11460968180 got moved way out of whack in this update. Can you doublecheck?

highway=footway are not typically mapped in the woods. You could add the informal=yes tag to designate that they are not formal trails.

osm.wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_restrictions

Are you using Wandrer? footways show up there if they are inside of a park, so this would not help there. The best way to map difficult to ride paths in OSM is adding the smoothness and visibility tags. Then if I were you, I'd lobby whomever manages the apps you are using to not show paths that are 'impassible' or very bad smootness. Check out this link for more:

osm.wiki/Mountain_biking
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140859551

Hi there, looks like you are adding horse trails so they show up on Waymarked Trails or similar apps. Adding all of the trails in a park as a single route is not supported. Routes are designed to be from point A to point B. If you want to make these sorts of edits, you'll want to create individual routes for each path.

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159997491

Hi Matt, welcome to OpenStreetMap. It looks like you are here based on Strava or one of the various completionist apps that use OSM data. We welcome your edits but please be aware that mapping a path as bicycle=no when you don't think it is bicycle accessible is not how that tagged is supposed to be used. access=no or private or only for *legal* prohibitions. Please only add access/bicycle=no if there is a sign prohibiting access or if there is a gate (anything gated is fine as private). Please correct any issue in your edits where this is the case. Thank you!

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group
OSM Foundation

Bravo! The new update looks good, thank you for the details and all that you and the Lyft team do. I appreciate you.

nice find on these ones at the new warehouse, thank you! Could you say (via the imagery) if the land here is still accurate to note as being under contruction?

its gone, unfortunately Bark Social is out of business https://barksocial.com/blogs/news/bark-social-one-of-the-nation-s-largest-and-most-beloved-dog-bars-is-closing-its-doors

Hello Nater Kane, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contributions around PVSP. I am interested in your work in the park as it relates to access, closed trails, and related matters. Myself, park rangers, and the FPVSP developed a means of auditing all OSM trails within the park a few years ago and speaking for myself, I'd love to have you continue with the torch. If it is easier I'd be happy to set up a call or meeting and I'm always happy to review any issues you find where they related to on-ground conditions and what is on OSM.

Warm regards,

Elliott Plack

Nater, thanks for trying to help here. Have a look at osm.org/way/175902858

Something went awry there.

Greetings. What is the source of these boundaries named as orders? Is that name (the changeset name) something that can be observed on the ground, on a sign. If you could amend the boundary with sources, we'd appreciate it.

Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Yes, there are roads on military based that are open to the public but this is the exception rather than the norm. Garrison commanders can raise the FPCON at any time and limit the accessibility of the base (in areas behind the gates).

What I don't want to see is you (or anyone) make general edits to military installations without checking conditions. There have been a number of DWG cases lately where people make edits to bases over access, only to be reverted. Their reasoning is around being unable to route their [insert delivery app name] there. That is a software problem however. Routers can permit access over private routes if the developer desires to allow this.

Agreed, all roads on the base, any US DOD installation should be access=private. You can make them private=military although that is still under active discussion on the forum. Think of it like this, say you’re out jogging and approach the gate of an installation. You ask a guard hey can I go in there and run around? Of course, the guy at the gate will probably say GFY especially at bases around here like Fort Meade. Permitted access tagging in OSM is for things where the public and generally get the permit. Joining the military or obtaining a secret security clearance does not meet that bar.

Henry, Good find, I think you're exactly right. I was aware of the little stub being public and am not sure why I changed it to private. I've been down there many times as my parents lived nearby until just recently. I've just edited it back though I did not merge it so as to preserve history. osm.org/changeset/158918234

Robert, one improvement is to be sure to connect any sidewalks to an adjacent roadway for routing. you can add a crossing, even if unmarked, at any intersection.

Hi there, nice work on tidying up. Please do consider something more descriptive in your comments beyond "update". Also, regarding disassociating nodes from buildings, e.g., at Walgreens, it is fine to leave them merged. I will take care of that. Not everyone enters at the entrance. You can map the entrances though if you like.

Hi there. Elliott here from the DWG. In this changeset some bus stops were misattributed from the Charm City Circulator to the Maryland Transit Adminstration. These services run indepentently and often utilize different stops. Could you look back at this changeset at ones that moved the operator to MTA from CCC? https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=145094255

Example: osm.org/node/1994082203

In the example, the MTA does not serve the Harbor Point area.

Hi! Elliott here from the forum. Regarding tiger cleanup I recommend clearing all those tags as a symbol that someone has cleaned it up. Some argue keeping those tags but at this point they are some 15 years removed from the TIGER dataset. The community forum will always have something to say on this topic.

My approach is to clear all of them and then set the surface. Since the surface isn't in the import and it often either asphalt or concrete, it is an easy way to say someone has been here and looked at it.

Hey there, thanks for doing that!

Thanks for doing this but please report these sorts of things to DWG so we can take it up with the user. In this case they have gone on to make more bad edits (which you can feel free to revert if you'd like)