Hi again JriSv250. I see you requested review on this changeset. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, adding the bay as a relation, but this particular edit is not correct. The way a multipolygon relation is supposed to work is a collection of ways that may also be used in other map features. OSM has a policy to map what is observable. The bay relation here does not follow any particular lines of the existing shoreline. The way to do it would be to select all of the existing parts of the shoreline and make it into a big relation. Also, if you read the wiki for natural=bay, it specifies "Note that this tag is not for tagging presence of water". The bay can be mapped as a point for cartography since the water is handled by the coastline area.

Now, the local convention for mapping the coastline is to follow the Atlantic coast, into the bay, but not up any of the rivers or others bays. The other bays are covered by existing water relations. By extending the coastline into the areas already covered by water, you have inadvertently broken the coastline because it creates overlapping water areas. The coastline should never be placed on an area that is already covered by a water area (or relation).

Hi there! Thanks for the attempt here but the result has damaged the map in several data products that consume OSM data. While things look OK on the main map, the coastline is out of compliance. I would not recommend updating the OSM coastline in ID, due to its inability to really see the big picture. In particular, I've set up the Chesapeake Bay in a way that may not seem obvious, but is vetted by the local and global community. I see you're continuing to work in the area so I'd love to explain more and so you can better help on the project! Are you on the OSM US Slack?

As an example, I just added the Mays Chapel CDP boundary using existing ways. This way changes to the roads move the boundary a bit, like if someone corrects the geometry, and you don't have a second way making a mess of the map.

osm.org/changeset/93497878

Tym: I've just conducted an area-wide sweep, looking at boundary relations that you and others (that I've seen on the city strides leader boards) have added in recent month. As a city strides user myself, I'm excited to see you all adding expertise to the map as you find things along the way. However, please don't add census designated place boundaries as administrative boundaries to OSM. CDPs are not administrative boundaries, they're just made up for counting purposes. Maryland OSM'ers have a longstanding understanding not to add these, or to convert them to boundary=census. So, that is what I just did, for all the ones that have been added. Baltimore County (for whom I worked in a GIS role for many years) has no towns whatsoever (there's a very small portion of Hampstead that extends into the county, due to a surveying error). Howard County is the same. Ellicott City is not a city, or a town, or really anything, legally. It is just a place people with boundaries that everyone has a slightly different version of in their mind. I think that if you, Karl, and others want to work on adding census boundaries using existing roads, rivers, etc., and not simply dumping a cdp boundary file into the map, then we can do that. In the past few years I've deleted many CDPs because the boundaries were old (they change every 10 years). You can take a look at the Towson relation for an example of how the boundary relation uses existing ways. Any of this work should be done in JOSM and should have zero validator errors or warnings prior to upload. Let me know if you want to assemble a group of folks to do that. Next, I think you and I should lobby the city strides developers to include boundary=census into its definition. Another area to include would be landuse=residential, with a name, because those are usually subdivision plat boundaries me and my friend Phil have added. Best, Elliott

Tym, I got out there Friday and checked it out for myself. I'm torn here because the Abbey View side is still there and passable, but once you get on TU property it is all trees. I could get by on foot now, but in a few years it will be practically impassible. I also see how that lower gate is all locked down now.

I spoke with some neighbors on Abbey View and they said people still walk their section at times. I also found some paths to get onto campus but nothing really firm. That whole area is odd in that there are a bunch of communities that are all walled off from one another.

Here's my strava activity: https://www.strava.com/activities/4233852716#comments

Say it ain't so Tym! This was my favorite running trail as a student. You used to be able to bushwack through to Abbey View. Is that impassible now?

Hey phil! I think node 1740497649 might be an error. Take a look.

Nice work here Derek! A minor note: When adding sidewalks, be sure to connect them to nearby roads. This helps with routing. Thanks!!

Hi Karl, and welcome to the project. OSM does not recognize Census Designated Places as boundaries in the project. Originally, TIGER boundaries were imported in an effort to get boundaries into the map when starting from scratch. However, CDPs (which change often and have no legal definition) are not desirable in the map. Further, it against OSM rules to import these boundaries from a county GIS source without prior permission from the OSM community. Please refrain from adding these boundaries until reviewing the OSM import guidelines: osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

More on CDP: osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dcensus

Hi there and welcome. According to the Water Taxi website, several of these routes are still operational with a new name. Can you explain why you deleted them, and the marinas at Fells Point? It is improper to delete the items from the map if they are inactive for COVID. Rather, they should be set to inactive. Further, the piers and what not should not be deleted unless they are physically removed. As a result, we may need to roll back your edits here and try it again the right way. Let me know what the intent was .
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87886319

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"...