Agreed, I’d delete all as spam. According to public records, the 718 address is the one where Affordable Roofing is. However based on the aerial there is no parking there. I think it’s just a home office.

Hi Djam, following up on ZeLonewolf's question here. This section of MD 41 is not recognized by Maryland as an expressway. In fact, there is no access control here, which is required for motorway tagging. Would you mind changing it back to how it was before? The OSM Wiki has a good description of what constitutes an expressway: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway

Looks like a home office sort of location. I would typically use the same criteria for these sorts of businesses as Google Maps, i.e. if it is not publicly accessible location, it should not be mapped as a POI. It if fine to list the mailing address on a website that the business controls but not to list the office location unless there is some sort of show room. This node has the same address and yet a different location, probably the same sort of SEO stuff: osm.org/node/6829598587/history

Thank you!

Hi there, these roads are closed/removed, so they don't need to be edited.

Hey, no worries! Anything is possible, also it could be a case where the editor failed to notify you of a potential break. I appreciate all of the bike/ped related work you do for the community and the care you take. Thank you!

Fixed it here: osm.org/changeset/113868477#map=19/38.88978/-77.01385

Be mindful of route relations when combining paths. This edit broke a section of the East Coast Greenway. Route relations require end to end connectivity so look out for them when working. Here's where the issue occurred: osm.org/node/8398721839

Thank you for this information! I looked at some street view and this does look like a treacherous place to ride or walk, no arguments there. On OSM however, the bicycle=no tag indicates a legal/posted restriction, not that this is dangerous to ride. OpenStreetMap does not currently have a great means of tagging highways where bicycle or pedestrian access is allowed but dangerous or unsafe. It is something the community has discussed over on the OSMUS Slack, bicycle channel https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CKC0HGF4H

I'd encourage your participation if interested.

Looks like a ped/bike bridge is sorely needed here, by the way. I would hope that once opened, SC DOT would mark the bridges as ped/bike prohibited and we could restore the bicycle=no tagging, but for now, absent any legal posted restriction, we've got to keep the bicycle=yes tag.

Here you can see the ECG official map showing the crossing and a recommendation to use caution: https://map.greenway.org/?loc=17,32.78120,-79.96015

Denny, what is the source for the bicycle restriction? The bridges are part of the bicycle route the East Coast Greenway, so bicycle permission is granted by SC DOT. Do you know differently?

Here is my attempt: osm.org/way/296739416#map=17/44.00194/-70.07515&layers=C

Hi there, this looks like a nice trail, but it does not have any tags. Is it open now? What is the surface like? I am happy to fix it for ya.

fixed this!

Hey there, fellow cyclist here. I've been working on the East Coast Greenway data in OSM and came across some issues in Philly. Everything is fixed now, but please have a look around the area where Spring Garden intersects Columbus. A few important bike routing things to consider.

Never add cycleways for regular curb bike lanes, unless there is vertical separate. This follows the NACTO guidelines. Physical separation is a bollard, parked car, curb, etc. Regular bike lanes should just be added to the roadway.

In places where the River Trail and sidewalk are the same thing, don't add a separate bike path there. It confuses routing and is poor form. If bikes are allowed on the sidewalk where it is named, then add bicycle=yes to the sidewalk.

Generally things looks good in the area and I commend you for your work adding new facilities around the area. -Elliott

The instructions in the map roulette are to change the road to a bridge if the existing waterway is a culvert. Phil probably added it as a culvert but the state/county do consider it a bridge. Truck routers would look at weight restrictions on the roadway but probably not on a waterway.

Boopington: You changed some railroads from disused to abandoned in this changeset. What was the reasoning for that change. Some of these railroads are in active still in fact. Generally I wouldn't mark a line abandoned until the line has been removed but the grade/clearing remains.

Hi there, nice work on the park paths and Welcome to the OSM project!! You seem new, so I appreciate you diving in. One minor area of improvement is where sidewalks cross roads. At these places, be sure to add a crossing, whether marked or unmarked. This helps a routing algorithm trace the path that the pedestrian would take. Here's an example I just added for you: osm.org/way/998153493

Thank you!!

Let's try marking the restricted parts with bicycle=no and foot=no. Strava may only look for those rules. Same tags on the gates.

Hi, I've been thinking about this a bunch! I tested on Strava and see the issue. I haven't been there in person honestly (though I'd love to do a run around there) So is all access north of both gates disallowed? You cannot pass either north from Range Road to Wildlife loop, or from Wildlife Loop to Wildlife Loop? Strava heat seems to indicate this. I would definitely mark those sections as access=private.

Hello there again. I appreciate the spirit of this work (I used to fix Strava routing errors with their tool back when Paul Mach worked there) but these sorts of disconnects are improper. I have to reconnect them for some place mapping I'm working on in the area. The better thing to do would be to mark the roads that are private or no access and then wait a year or so for Strava to update their routing data. They are pretty slow when it comes to OSM edits. Hopefully that improves.