In addition to using out of date information, this changeset uses the wrong addr:state format. addr:state should use the two letter abbreviation, i.e. "MD" per the wiki osm.wiki/Key:addr:state?uselang=en

The campus map information cited over 12 years old, from 2009. Please Revert, as John suggested. The current map can be found here: https://maps.umd.edu/map/

Thank you I saw that yesterday as well and meant to update it back to parking aisle so I appreciate the update. I even snapped a photo of the lot restriction to put in OSM :D

https://www.strava.com/activities/5623116671

The montebello case is a special one with the COVID-19 related closures. The city had converted a number of streets to "slow streets" and closed them but the program was not popular and all of the restrictions have been lifted EXCEPT for Lake Montebello. There has always been a segregated section of that road for recreation but there used to be a section open to cars. Now that is closed to cars so we've got effectively two parallel cycleway/path loops. That may change once the Harford Road bridge is reopened... TBD.

For these slipways, I've raised the question on Slack and added some photos. I'm thinking it would be better to go back to the way you had it before, but I'd love to see what the community thinks. https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1626287506192400

This raised a good question that I thought to ask some colleagues at DOT what the intended use is. I'd thought cycleway based on how a similar thing was done here, near the Maryland Ave Track. I believe the goal is traffic calming either way. If we went back with some sort of road feature, I'd mark it as hgv=no and all the rest, but I don't know enough about data users to know if they'd respect those. We could ask some of the local Lyft and Amazon mappers to weigh in. Here's example: osm.org/way/461263392

Nice! What do you think about switching those slipramps to cycleway? That helps a bit with our PeopleForBikes score and is essentially what the ramps are now. It is assumed that all motorized modes are prohibited now, rather than having it be a link. I made the change based on how I recall it last time I rolled through there, see what you think. I'm taking the track home tonight and will take a look again.

I just updated all of the sites and added various attributes (like picnic table and such)

Hey I was just here today and looking at these sites. Nice edit here. Do you think the loop sites (camp pitches) should be capitalized? e.g. a19 --> A19

Cool, I figured nothing ill will intended. Do you know if NPS has a similar site assignment of its sites deeper in the park?

Hey Sparks! I see you removed the campsite tag from a lot of things in this changeset. I was just down at the park today and saw how all the RV sites are. Those shouldn't be tagged as campsites but rather this: osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_pitch

I just learned of this tag today. The RV park should be tagged differently too. What do you think?

I feel ya, no worries. I've been working on other things too.

If you want to go HAM with the art as a project, you can refer to this airtable: https://airtable.com/shrA5X2E2zGry6yV6/tbllZKrFysTV8XVzp

I started doing some of it, there's a lot though osm.org/node/7823645378

I have a dataset of murals in the city I'd love to map. Only comment here is that I believe they're best tagged as a point on the way, like this one below, since the wiki says they should be a point only.

osm.org/node/7472578437

osm.wiki/Tag:artwork%20type=mural

Getting bored of our neighborhood project? Almost to the finish line!

Hi M86! I work for MDOT State Highway Administration (eplack@mdot.maryland.gov) and we're responsible for the inventory and maintenance of park & rides in Maryland. By adding this to OSM, you've done us a great service because it already appears on some maps we use. Thank you!! We just sent a crew out today to take some measurements. I'll update OSM with as much as I can from that collection. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. -Elliott

I've fixed this issue by rolling back the changeset. Please do not add separate ways for turns/ramps/etc that are only separated by paint. There needs to be a median for a separate way.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105858879

Iosgino: please be careful working around intersections like this with turn restrictions. This edit broke the turn restriction. Data users that use OSM data for routing can break this way.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105858879

iosgino: MD-795 is an unsigned route. We do not add the ref shield to unsigned routes in Maryland. MDOT SHA (for which I work) has a plethora of unsigned routes like MD 795. We don't add them to the map because they would confuse the traveling public because they'd look for a sign for MD 795 based on turn-by-turn directions. Such a sign does not exist. Thus, that reference should be added as an unsigned_ref

iosgino, please do not convert ramps (motorway_link) to regular highways without discussing with the local community. The ramps are set this way per community standards and are in use by a variety of data consumers. The last edit I made reverted your previous change to the ramps (for which you were blocked by the OSM DWG).

If it is in the Census 2020 place file than we can add it back no problem. It should be if it is still incorporated.