Hi there. In this edit you've changed the name of a military area to a regional name. Another user has since rolled back this change: osm.org/relation/12196193/history

I'm hoping this was an accident, but if not, please discuss with others as to why you feel it should be that way before changing it.

Thanks!

Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Hi, please do not tag trunks in Maryland until a concensus is reached on the wiki and all are on board via posts on talk-us.

-- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

I understand your point but this is not the appropriate way to approach the issue. Speaking as DWG here… the standard for shielded routes, however sparsely signed, is that the regular ref tag is used. This is understood all over the world. Data users of OSM data rely on a standard set of tags that are backed by open consensus. In the last decade of OSM highway tagging, an agreed standard for destination tagging, routes, and designations have been set and are well agreed upon. This process has allowed big companies like Lyft and Amazon to adopt OSM. They are not without controversy but they do typically adopt what the community defines. The “official_ref” tag is not well defined and from what I’ve read, this isn’t the appropriate application. It is for route IDs similar to unsigned ref, where there may be a small sign in places that is not meant for public use. The US 40 signs, though few and far between, are meant for public use. Ref:penndot would be a better use for that tag.

The fact is that there are many ref’d routes that are not well signed and still a part of OSM. Take the USBR system for instance. States like Maryland have officially designated USBR 1 and 50 but there is no signage. However, AASHTO releases those bike route designations public domain and they’re dutifully added to the map by a lot of volunteers.

Road refs are no different. Just because the city does a bad job at sign maintenance doesn’t mean the route is nil. You could report the missing shields on 311 and the city would put them up. They just don’t do things proactively. If someone doesn’t maintain their house, would we stop calling it a house? “Significance” has nothing to do with the way OSM data works. I understand you come from a perspective of carless and urbanism which I applaud. However, this edit appears to show bias to the local road user that could be oblivious to the fact that North Ave is also US40 truck or US 1. That fact remains that the designation of those routes remains on the books and that is enough for them to be tagged in OSM.

The proper way to approach this lack of signage would be to propose a change on the talk-us and tagging lists (NOT Slack!!) While I am among the biggest proponents of slack, I think it is important that major/fundamental changes to the way things are standardized on the map should go to a larger audience. Perhaps there can be a new tag around signage density, or maybe visibility. That is a larger discussion. Baltimore can’t be a special edge case for routing mapping. Routers could use those tags, sure, but they won’t unless it is standard.

Until some agreement can be reached, I’ll ask that you revert this and all “official_ref” changes in Baltimore. If you will not, I will, but I don’t want it to come to that. I appreciate your work in Baltimore but there are certain areas where things need to be discussed with a wider audience. Also, I don’t always have time to chime in on slack conversations, but please don’t interpret radio silence there as permission to proceed. There are others that are concerned.

Thanks,

Elliott Plack
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group

bgo_eiu, I don't think that we should remove the ref for US 40 Truck and US 1 due to BCDOT's lackluster sign shop alone. The designations for these routes are still signed prominently on I-83 at their exits and at the begin point for US 40 Truck on Erdman Ave. Official maps from the state and city still use these designations. I think it would be unfair to truck routing users of OSM to hide these standard refs into an obscure tag. For all we know, BCDOT standard might just be to sign these at the begin and end.

Hi, unmarked crossings are still crossings. You can legally cross at most places there is an intersection unless there’s a sign saying otherwise. Those are rare in this region. You might not see the crossing but it’s there for routing of the sidewalks

Thank you!! Great work, keep it up.

Hello again, just a friendly reminder to remove the "tiger:reviewed=no" tag when you've finished editing the roadway geometry. That lets other mappers know that this has been checked. You can remove all of the tiger: tags if you'd like. I'd also like to invite you to the OSM US slack #local-maryland channel where the Maryland community on OSM is centered. We'd love to have you as a participant on the eastern shore! Join here https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Hi there, I'm writing this on behalf of Maryland State Highway Administration. We own the land here and want to know where you'd come up with the name Urieville Park. Is that the GNIS Name?

cmitchell, hi there, I see you're working hard on the Deal Island lately. Anything you need support on here? I've imported the WMA boundaries and have been updating them with newer data occasionally. Looks like this one should follow the coastline 1:1 as you appear to be doing.

I see. All good then. What I've been doing lately is snapping human landuse to the natural boundaries and then mapping neighborhoods "plat boundaries" to their legal locations. I tag the plat boundaries as administrative boundaries (level 10) and then run the residential area all the way along the inside of the trees, meadows, etc. Zoning is often not perfectly matched to parcel boundaries; due to the way they are mapped at a big picture level.

Example: osm.org/relation/11719432#map=15/39.4643/-76.6740

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.