Blocked osm.org/user_blocks/5680

Anything else to revert for this one?

Thank you. I am working on the golf mapper issue with the Data Working Group. I saw your comment on the lewis22derek one where he'd changed some things at Patterson Park. I am working backwards through the edits to revert. Please let me know if I can be of assistance, as I appreciate your work as well!

A few of us over at OSMUS Slack in the #golf channel updated the wiki with some of these issues: osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Hey there, thanks for the work updating the new sections of the OEC connector. The Friends and DNR are working on improving OSM to mirror these important projects!

On the data side, the use of both proposed=yes and the description in parentheses is discouraged in favor of the "lifecycle prefix" style of tagging. You may see this elsewhere in the park where a closed trail becomes closed:highway=path. These do not show up in the rendered map but are visible in the data to let mappers know not to add them.

I have not visited the connector in some months, so you likely have better on-the-ground experience here, but if parts of the connector are merely flagged and not walkable other than bushwhacking, I would not add them as paths just yet. Read about the prefix tags here: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Also, for the parentheses, check out osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions as those descriptors should be put in descriptions.

This edit broke the Chesapeake Bay

Hi there, I believe the discussion is now resolved (see my late comment) so you can resume your work in this area. Zlonewolf already addressed this partly in osm.org/changeset/116862075.

-- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Adamant, Elliott from the DWG here. The only one we see in the wrong here is you, for asserting authority over an area where you have none and for using this changeset discussion as a platform. Please cease and desist from further discussion, causing grief to your fellow mappers, and this line of questioning. The OSM community is fluid across a plethora of mediums, many of which are far better for this sort of discussion. Please take this conversation elsewhere. In my own experience there are many, many more mappers that are in agreement on the classification structure than those that care to respond on the wiki or the talk lists. Please take this conversation elsewhere. osm.org/user_blocks/5637

Thanks for fixing the missing link in the network!

FYI, the pickleball court preset has now been added to ID.

thanks for checking that out!

I see you are into bicycle tagging. Good to see that! Trunks are bike routable by default by most US-based routers about you can add the bicycle=yes/no tags to these trunks for specificity if desired.

Have a look here osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_States_of_America

Hi there, these changes were not errors. The trunk is a roadway classification that is independent of the individual characteristics of the pavement. It is an all or nothing sort of thing. US 222 connects two major routes across a region that lacks a motorway connection, thus it is a trunk road. Have a look at this wiki article before making any other roadway classification changes.

osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Thanks!

Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

osm.org/user_blocks/5614

They are blocked now, so I don't expect a reply. Are any of these edits valid? osm.org/user_blocks/5605

I'd say you did a bit for than just update that Burlington ;) Looks good there. There was a troublesome mapper active around here that it looks like you may have cleaned up some bogus stuff.

Hi M86. I'm investigating a mass delete around the location of this changeset. Does this appear normal to you? osm.org/changeset/116388913#map=19/39.43499/-76.27675

Go Steve!! Solid work here.

Hi there, Elliott with OSMF DWG. I hope I can help resolve the issue here but first I am a native English speaker only. Can you both communicate in English? If not, I can find a Swedish speaking DWG member.

osm.org/user_blocks/5607

Thanks for contacting the DWG. I am familiar with this data source and the local area. Taking a look at things I agree that this appears to be an import of the Montgomery County dataset. I've actually working on a proposal for a more wholesale import of the MoCo data but would have conflated addresses and excluded existing features. Therefore I would agree that rolling this back may be the best option.

@jpeterson, please respond here to the comments. We all appreciate efforts to update the map but when using external data, there are some important considerations to make with the formal import process.

-- Elliott
OSMF Data Working Group