PG Parks still shows it closed :p

Oh, damn. I was assuming Greenway People have better intel. If that's the case I'll just revert this one.

Wanted to update and say I fixed the offending cycleways along 4th St SW. Most of the ones I came across in the area are good though. The protected lanes should always merge back to the roadway wherever the separation ends. All set here but keep in mind for future.

Nice work on getting R open. Are you familiar with the East Coast Greenway? I believe the new cycletrack carries it and I've updated the route but if you could doublecheck on the ground, that'd be awesome. I'm talking about the area around where S Capitol St SW has been realigned SW of the Nationals Park.

Awesome, thanks for you public service to the bicycling community! I should have said (in my original comment) that I didn't recognize these routes, not edits, sorry! I see them in the source you provided though and respect local knowledge over anything I could dig up anyhow.

My angle is trying to streamline the bicycle route network in the area and I'd wondered if any of these could possibly be moved on to the adjacent protected lanes in certain cases (like on Campus Drive.)

Hey there, There are some edits to bicycle infrastructure in this changeset that are non-standard and should be adjusted. I'm a huge cyclist and advocate, so I'm all about bike edits but it should follow the best practices outline in the wiki and elsewhere. PeopleForBikes has a great explainer for all this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1isc9M9_c-QL4Oy8_MxAyogZ6ocs1F6PeEn_Y1p0WZp8/edit

The main issue here is that bike lanes that not physically separated should not be tagged as independent cycleway ways. The only time you should add a separate cycleway is for an off street path (like in a park) that is a cycleway, or a protected bicycle lane. Protected, in the US, tends to mean parked cars or bollards separating the lane. Otherwise, the cycleway tags are added directly to the roadway.

Hi there. What was the Bike Maryland source for these LCN adds around College Park? I am a Bike Maryland member and do not recognize these edits. The link given does not resolve to any particular source.

Hey there, this is super cool work! But by using the Bing imagery here everything is shifted a great deal. Would you considered moving things with the Maryland latest imagery instead? The Maryland imagery is adjusted for local distortion unlike Bing.

PS: User_5359, I think they moved those tags to the larger rock cut areas.

Hi there. While I agree that there is no safe place to walk along 355 here, the roadways is not prohibited to pedestrians, just merely unsafe. The foot=no tag should only be used if there is a sign prohibited pedestrians by law, such as on the entrance to an interstate. In this case, you could tag that there is no shoulder and no sidewalk, but not prohibit foot traffic.

This changeset has been reverted in full in osm.org/changeset/112229801

You cannot simply delete everything in an area and say sorry. The address nodes deleted were imported with full community agreement, as were the parking lots surveyed. It is fine to update something if it is wrong, but not to delete everything en masse. This affects users of the data as whole streets had been removed.

Just a note on trunk updates. Trunk assumes bike and foot = no in some jurisdictions. When upping something to Trunk and if those non-car modes are allowed, update the access accordingly.

Sounds good. I have a tracking spreadsheet of all the cities and places in the state to track if they've been done. This work is helpful to that end. Let me know if you'd like a link to it.

Sparks, if you're updating these admin boundaries, would you mind updating the Source tag on ones you've already fixed? I add the same source tag to the boundary and the relation: Maryland Department of Planning 2019-08-02 via https://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/maryland-political-boundaries-municipal-boundaries

I can take a look, these census boundaries are often wonky.

Same rule applies for the natural surface trails at Woodbrook:

Hi there, in OSM a cycleway is generally a paved, urban path dedicated exclusively to bicycles. Natural surface trails like this should not be tagged as a cycleway, they should be tagged as a path. You can update bicycle (and foot) to yes or no according to signs on the ground. Occasionally you'll see a trail that does not allow bikes, so you'd add bicycle=no there. This is all detailed here: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway

Also, be aware that for routing purposes, bicycle=yes is assumed for highway=path as is foot=yes. Cheers!

Hi there, in OSM a cycleway is generally a paved, urban path dedicated exclusively to bicycles. Natural surface trails like this should not be tagged as a cycleway, they should be tagged as a path. You can update bicycle (and foot) to yes or no according to signs on the ground. Occasionally you'll see a trail that does not allow bikes, so you'd add bicycle=no there. This is all detailed here: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway

Also, be aware that for routing purposes, bicycle=yes is assumed for highway=path as is foot=yes. Cheers!

Looks like another throwaway account used to intentionally damage the map. With no response or activity in 5 months, I've rolled this one back osm.org/changeset/111943578

One of the changes to a park indicates a high likelihood this is yet another "landuse mapper" that disagrees with American landuse standards.

Hey there! By local convention, people tend to add woods trails paths as highway=path, while a footway is thought of more as a sidewalk sort of thing. This is, of course, a subject of great debate but I wouldn't bother swapping the tag without really improving the data beyond that. I work for the landowner of these trails and we tag them as paths per our guidelines. There is a new Trails workgroup forming to look at standards like this for a national standard. Get involved here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdL3x0PtM8N0G2AzrRC7QcMCM5SWl70-5iPXwPJh0_8wH9djQ/viewform

Hey, if it is a legal boundary that is fine and pretty common when the boundary was added after something was already there. For the CDP boundaries they don't really matter and shouldn't really cut off homes. Ideally they'd be snapped to roads or streams.

And, if I updated it to trunk (I forget) apologies, no shade meant. I suggest you make it trunk up to Salisbury either way :)