Thanks for working on this!!

Do the named ways of the relation affect how those apps display the info? See how this coastline has a name? (It was like that before I edited it yesterday) osm.org/way/591823494#map=14/37.8278/-75.4774

I like the idea of having it both ways. That way we could still have this relation and the level of detail around all of the water ways (instead of natural=bay points). Jochen, can you check to see how SF Bay looks on the renderer/data app you are using? I think we can reach an amicable solution for everyone here.

Some of these discussions have taken place on changesets, but mostly in the OSMUS Slack, which I thought was a fine place to have such conversations.

The reason we considered this is because new users kept breaking the coastline by drawing it on arbitrary lines or one ways already covered by water. Some of these users claimed to be coming at it from the MS Flight Simulator use case, but I wonder how it works if they fly over the great lakes in that app. We thought that by simplifying the coastline out where the salt/fresh transfer occurs, we'd prevent these kinds of edits.

Here's one of those changesets. osm.org/changeset/93828561 The user never responded so I went ahead and rolled it back, then started doing it the proper way, setting up water areas for all the named sections of bay.

Jochen, that sounds like an issue with the apps that consume OSM, not the data itself. There are other, larger inland water bodies that are tagged this way, like Lake Michigan, which is 3x as big as the bay. osm.org/relation/1205149

I had removed much of the Chesapeake Bay's tributaries about 4 years ago and no one has said anything yet.

I have read that apps like MS Flight Sim don't recognize water relations, but that'd be tagging for the renderer... The coastline is correct, it follows the bathymetry of the Bay.

Nice work!! I made a few tweaks to the tags and removed a double covered creek up north

Potomac is done. The coastal bays along the VA delmarva coast are insanly complex. osm.org/relation/11880156#map=11/38.2560/-76.7810

That's exactly right. That was the reason we started removing the smaller estuaries from the coastline, so edits to them would show up on the map in a timely fashion. It also helps with cognition of those bodies of water for what they are, instead of big blobs of nothing without a name.

I think the best way would be to start at the Potomac and then work outward, doing big rivers and sub-bays one at a time.

Nice work on this project! Any interest in working more on the Chesapeake, removing it from the coastline? A newish mapper inadvertently broke part of your Eastern Bay relation and I've just finished fixing it. It makes me wonder if converting the whole thing to a water relation might make it easier to maintain.

Hello again, this edit, like the other one in the Chesapeake, inadvertently broke the coastline here. The Indian River Bay is covered by a water relation, and thus does not need to have the coastline cover it as well. The coastline should end on the downstream edge of the water relation. I reverted this changeset and updated the coastline accordingly.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93143748

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