All set now. Check this out, I moved the residential area you'd made to the inner edges of the natural areas in the neighborhood. You can do this as best practice. osm.org/changeset/123242963#map=15/39.0762/-77.0316

Basically, you pretend the boundary=protected area is not there and then trace woods, meadows, wet areas, and residential areas around it without touching/snapping.

Hey there, I am not sure if you're intending to do this or not, but please do not move any "boundary=protected_area" features, e.g., parks and nature reserves. The boundaries are precise and should not match any landuse (residential, woods, etc.). Just leave them where they are and draw anything landuse around them. I will fix these now.

deleting this and a few others.

Hi there, nice work jumping on this change, but the use of admin_level=1 is incorrect in this case. International boundaries should be admin_level=2. Level 1 is not currently used. Please remove the level one tag.

Thank you,

Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Hi there, I'm Elliott with the OSMF Data Working Group. In this edit, you've added the admin_level=1 tag to an administrative boundary line and given it a name, two things that are not correct. We do appreciate your work in general, but let's get these things fixed.

First, you should remove the admin_level from the boundary line osm.org/way/386906020 as it is redundant with the boundary relation (osm.org/relation/187187). Secondly, the boundary should not have a name unless it is a real, signposted name like "the Mason-Dixon line". In this case, you have a name that is really a description. You can move that name to the description field if you'd like.

Also, if you're using TIGER 2017, you should be aware that TIGER 2020 geometry is now available with the latest decennial place updates. Generally, the census incorporated place boundaries are not as good as what cities/states make available however, but it is better than nothing.

Thank you

Hi there again. Sorry about that! I will take it up with the other user. Nice work on the level of detail on this little spec of an island. I wonder if the places where they buried the disputed alcohol/flags can be seen and mapped :D

Hi there, nice work jumping on this change, but the use of admin_level=1 is incorrect in this case. International boundaries should be admin_level=2. Level 1 is not currently used.

Some additional citations for general consumption:

https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2022/06/boundary-dispute.html

https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/06/the-hans-island-peace-agreement-between-canada-denmark-and-greenland/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61801682

https://www.iflscience.com/50-year-whisky-war-ends-with-first-land-border-between-canada-and-europe-64099

Thanks,
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Hi there, Elliott here from the OSM Data Working Group. I have reverted this changeset because it changed the tags on a part of the outer boundary of the The Cotswolds AONB relation.

Fentuz: please be wary of lines on the map that are not currently roads, that adding the road tag may have unintended consequences. In this case, it made a long roadway that spans an entire region. If those get in the way, you can hide all boundaries within the OSM ID editor by clicking the Map Data button and unselecting "Boundaries" under the "Map Features" area.

Thank you!
Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

As we're discussing on Slack, Towson was given the city category because of its population in the 2010 census and it being the county seat

Great! It is helpful, and it shows up on the main map.

Hi there, when mapping sidewalks/crosswalks please add the surface while you're working on it. It only takes a second. It helps out the data.

Please hold off on making these sorts of ramp classification edits. Speaking as DWG here. The convention is that the highest level of classification, ie motorway, is the type of ramp to use. Motorways are special in that they imply limited access, and a multitude of things that other classes do not. Data consumers know this. This is an area that needs more discussion before implementation.

All fixed here osm.org/changeset/121866028

osm.org/relation/6927118

OK, I see the gap now. https://i.imgur.com/OJqZ0fq.jpeg

Thanks for the heads up! I will take a look at the relation and the gaps. It may have had a gap already but nonetheless needs some fixing.

Funny, I was there with you when we made this edit IIRC !!

This is a lot of crossings for one SC trip :D you get around.

For osm.org/node/49565433 it appears this is a half barrier, not a no barrier. I've been looking at some MDOT data to help improve this particular SC task along!

https://kartaview.org/details/1179957/179

Its tough to say, I have moved from the area. Most roads are now 25 in Baltimore regardless of classification. Mapillary is pretty good here.

Love it!

Hi there DUGA, I see in this changeset you have changed some bridges to culverts. That is incorrect here. The bridges are tagged as bridges so that they can have max weight restrictions applied. Culverts cannot have a maximum weight. Please do not adjust any bridges in Baltimore County. We just went through a process with the county DPW to tag all the bridges with their weights to help routing software work around them.