Awesome edit! 👏

Hey there! Thanks for these edits. Hopefully someone has welcomed you to the OSM project. If not, let me be the first to.

Adding these building names is very useful to the project. One issue with the particular choice of naming however is prefixing them with the Company and Location descriptor. OSM is all about the data, and the quality thereof. These redundant names are better off as descriptive subtags, e.g. operator=Social Security Administration. Check out our osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only article. I made some changes to buildings in the security west area accordingly, see my changeset osm.org/changeset/89205474

If the official governement name is really that way with the full name of SSA - Location - Building, then I'd suggest putting all of that into the officlal_name=

Keep up the good work! Thanks for the paths on the SSA campus btw.

-Elliott

Hey there! Looks like you did some work with Maptime Bmore and our playground event. Have we me in person? I co-organize Maptime. Either way, you seem to have knowledge in Bolton Hill. Do you know what the "park" is at 1425 Eutaw Pl? It has some strangle cobblestone-lined humps within a park-like area, but it is not in the Rec&Parks park list. Curious what this might be. It is city-owned land.

We could probably set this to a pedestrian street or Living street then. Maybe add bollards if they exist

This is awesome! I want to see it in person. I wonder if it might look better to add the mural as a point rather than on the line. Or maybe have both?

Greetings, I'm reviewing some edits in this area and came across this changeset. When editing, can you be a little more descriptive in your changeset comments about the work you're doing? Feel free to look at my edits for an example.

In this changeset you made a road under a bridge into a tunnel. Was that on purpose? Or did ID do that automatically (with a click)? The road under the bridge doesn't need any special tags at all if it is on the ground. I rode it today to verify and will update the area.

Read this wiki article about those comments: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Alright, this is resolved. I've updated the geometry of the connector to show how it goes on private property and marked it as private. Also added some details to the map around the area. Check it out: osm.org/way/458181471#map=18/39.41570/-76.55559

Hello again, by now I trust you've seen osm.org/user_blocks/3768 from Woodpeck. We need to roll back these changesets where you've tagged walking paths as bridleways throughout the Gettysburg area. Unless these trails are designed primarily for horse travel, they should not be mapped this way. You seem to have a lot of knowledge around the Gettysburg area. Could you change any paths that are walking paths to the "Path" tag?

Regardless of how minor the change, it is important for other mappers that we detail what we're doing. I see you've made a few edits lately with some varied comments. That is a good start, but try for a few more words, like "added missing statues" or "changed path to track because it is not maintained"

Typo: ..." a surveyor needs to be called in to verify the exact position of boundaries"...

Update: I decided not to edit the map here just yet before we finish the discussion here. I did talk to the local GIS office but they point out that parcel data is only a representation and that a surveyor needs to be called in to very the exact positions of boundaries. Since OSM doesn't claim to be "survey grade" in that regard, we can only assume that the way the paths line up here reflect property rights.

Now, as a citizen, I did a little looking at this site and I can see where it appears the trail crosses private property. (I also see where the property owner has installed a basketball court onto the public right of way, effectively commandeering public property.) I think the best option here is to mark this little connector trail as private, but also to suggest to the homeowner to put up no-trespassing signs or a fence because I have a feeling that whether or not the path appears on the map, people know about this connection and will keep using it. And, had there been a sign saying "no trespassing" or private property, I as a responsible mapper would have marked it private from the start.

Sure, I am happy to help! I used to work for said GIS department so I know a few people. I'm actually taking a closer look at this on JOSM using the local parcel data and lidar overlays. When justified, I'm sensitive to private property rights too. On closer inspection I can see how someone would probably intrude upon the owner's private property (assuming it is the owner of address 1225) when using this path. The note above about a public right of way connection is true, however, people appear to be going around an embankment at the end of Brookview Rd and onto the land of 1225. I will make an adjustment in JOSM and mark the trail as access=private since in its current state it would be considered trespassing. The homeowner cannot prevent people from 'going straight' on Brookview, over the embankment, but he can prevent them from going around it. While I'm finding the right people, have a look at this link on the Baltimore County My Neighborhood GIS App. I placed a marker at the location. If you turn on the OSM basemap you can see how the connecting trail does dip down (south) into the property of 1225. https://bcgis.baltimorecountymd.gov/myneighborhood/?marker=-8522186.683%2C4781463.6462%2C102100%2CRight%20of%20Way%20of%20Brookview%20Road%2C%2C&level=19

Hi! That is a ridiculous allegation but not surprising due to a cultural issue people have around here with public parking on public rights of way. The public road Brookview Road is on a parcel owned by the local government here, Baltimore County. That parcel directly abuts there Park property with a 40 ft wide shared boundary. The public has access across this line by definition (of it being all public land). Now, if the people want to petition the county to restrict parking or put up a wall, they could. Perhaps they even have, since this changeset. I checked it out back in 2013 or so and didn’t see any signs to the contrary. I’d add a note to the map here asking a local mapper to go check it out.

Hi there. It appears you've been working on updating the position of roads in this area. That is great work, but two requests. One, add a useful changeset comment saying what you're editing, not just something generic. No two changeset comments should be the same. More here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Second, once the roads are straightened/aligned, delete all the tags with the tiger:* key. specifically deleting tiger:reviewed=no lets people know that someone has reviewed the area. Thanks!

Hello again. Did you see my note on your other changeset (osm.org/changeset/87163529)? Please add some additional context to your changeset comments. Thank you!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87210963

Good day. I see you've used the same comment for all of your last several dozen changeset comments. This is not the way to do it. For the good of the project, please add something descriptive about the type of edits you're making, e.g. "Added and edited woods around Rocks", "Added ponds", etc. Take a look at the wiki on how to write a good comment: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments and feel free to look at my changeset comments for an example.

Good day. Could you explain why you've changed a walking path to a horse path here? The bridleway tag implies only horses are allowed.

Please review osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#How_should_I_write_Changeset_Comments.3F for some examples of how to write a useful changeset comment.

Hello. This does not look like a fence.

Hello there. "fix roads" is not at all descriptive of this changeset. Could you explain a little more about what you're doing here? The use of localities as historic sites is unprecedented for the project. Localities are for mapping places of human settlement, not battlefields. We have a tag for that. While the work here at Gettysburg looks nice on OSM, the purpose of the project is to produce useful data for maps, not to make the openstreetmap homepage look good.