Solid work here! I like the way you mapped the baseball diamonds with the sand in the middle too.

Phil, this tower appears to have moved over to this node, can we combine them? osm.org/node/1314471972

Yea unfortunately 340 is built like an expressway and it wouldn't be a pleasurable shoulder to walk along. Plus you'd skip all of the fun little town of Harpers Ferry. I bet people can catch a Lyft/Uber for the connection since it is near civilization.

Nice work! I came back to add to the URL but you've got it. Did you see the recent update? No timeline.

Ryan, welcome to OSM (if no one else has welcomed you to the project.) This edit is your 296th. I found two issues with it that I wanted to point out. One, the name of this big body of water Indian River Bay, not Rehoboth Bay. The naming is well established on USGS Topo maps and on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_River_Bay . Second, the full bay is not a wetland. Please be careful when editing large multipolygon relations like this one. It looks like you inadvertently removed a part of it, which rendered it incomplete and caused it to draw strangely. The second item is fixed. I'll be switching the first item back shortly. Happy Mapping! -Elliott

FYI to anyone looking at this changeset. Mike and I have worked together on bus stop mapping for several years. In this changeset I gathered public bus stop data for MTA from their open data site, converted the bus stop names and attributes to ones that are compatible with OSM, and then supplied them to Mike for upload. Each was reviewed by either of us in person survey (usually by riding the bus line) prior to adding to OSM.

Nice work adding piers along the waterfront. I see this is your 64th edit. Could you add a bit more info to your changeset comments? Rather than "updated info" say what you updated, "mapped piers along back river looking at imagery. KUTGW.

m86: good work on the green space mapping and edits around Bel Air in general. I must object to the use of the recreation_ground tag in this case however. Any park in the USA that is formally called a park and designated as such should have the leisure=park tag. The recreation_ground tag is a british one (OSM is of British origin). In practice in the USA, mappers generally use it to highlight unofficial parks, e.g. school fields, public green parcels, and so on. If the site is a "park" on Harford County's website and on the ground, then I'd call it that in OSM. Read more: osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark osm.wiki/Tag:landuse=recreation%20ground?uselang=en-US

I’m going off what I know now. I still live in Baltimore and work in the county, and am active in the OSM project. You’re welcome to add the recreational fields as recreation_ground all around the county. That’d be great. But edits that increase the number of Pokémon portals will be reverted unless there’s some concrete evidence of a park there, like a photo on Mapillary or a source that we can use in OSM. There are still plenty of parks out there that could be mapped, such as in adjacent Carroll or Harford counties where local mappers aren’t as active. It’s great to see more green on the map as long as it follows the standards set forth in the OSM Wiki or the mailing lists. If you want, send a post to the OSM US talk list to discuss further with others.

That is incorrect. I worked for Baltimore County for many years. The shared fields at schools are operated as recreation grounds. In OSM we have a tag for that. Only parks on the master park list should appear as parks on OSM. When I worked for BaCo we added all county parks in that list and set Dept of Education Rec center lands to recreation_ground. Please do not alter those tags without consulting with other mappers first.

Reverted this. Second time. That Sollers Point Road property is NOT a park. It is an unnamed recreation_ground. Recreation grounds by definition can be on school property but are not parks. The word "recreation" is also in the Department of Recreation & Parks' name. They administer both items. Just being a joint BoE and RnP site does not make something a park.

reverted in osm.org/changeset/70007222 please see my note in osm.org/changeset/69997325 or WoodWoseWulf's in osm.org/changeset/69988780#map=15/39.2709/-76.4857 before adding any more of these nodes as parks.

reverted in osm.org/changeset/70007222 please see my note in osm.org/changeset/69997325 or WoodWoseWulf's in osm.org/changeset/69988780#map=15/39.2709/-76.4857 before adding any more of these nodes as parks.

reverted in osm.org/changeset/70007222 please see my note in osm.org/changeset/69997325 or WoodWoseWulf's in osm.org/changeset/69988780#map=15/39.2709/-76.4857 before adding any more of these nodes as parks.

reverted in osm.org/changeset/70007222 please see my note in osm.org/changeset/69997325 or WoodWoseWulf's in osm.org/changeset/69988780#map=15/39.2709/-76.4857 before adding any more of these nodes as parks.

Agreed here. Let's keep an eye on this user. I'm an experienced mapper in the area and have seen some dubious edits. There's a thread on OSMUS slack with more. I reached out politely on a few of the edits already.

Gabriel, glad to have you doing some high-detail mapping in Baltimore County. I made some tweaks to this changeset and others nearby based on many years of OSM editing and my work with Baltimore County. The landuse areas you've added as parks are not parks. We do not consider something a park in OSM unless the legal description of the property (the parcel) is publicly owned and designated as a park. You can tag landuses as natural things like woods or meadow if you'd like. I also removed a bunch of spurious points that are duplicates of other features. On OSM we have a rule about one thing on the planet = one thing in OSM. We don't map the same stuff multiple times. The fields and what not at Peachblossom should be mapped as their pitch types, not as parks.

Hello there and welcome to OSM. I see you've added some relations for the trail park. On OSM we have a rule of one feature per one real world thing. However, here you've got two relations. Additionally, many of them overlap with out features. The boundaries should not overlap with other places or be connected to roads. This is fairly advanced work. Could you tell me the difference between the Wakefield Valley Trail and the other trails open to the public at the old golf course? I will help fix this up for you. Thanks!

another comment on the trails. In order for these to be useful for routing, they must connect to another road. Please be sure to connect the path to an adjacent road.

nice work on the trail mapping around Bel Air! I encourage you to use the non-specific highway=path tag for paths unless they're only for walking. It's not possibly to know if bikes are prohibited without going in person, so generally I recommend the path tag for new trails. Then, after doing some survey, add the bike=yes/no, horse=yes/no, etc. This helps routing services send bike routing down paths unless bikes are specifically banned.