Mapmaker: excellent! Here is a well written summary of these adoptions by some of the prolific editors in the project.

osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Hi mapmaker, Joseph is right here. The trunk classification has evolved in the US in recent years. I’d encourage you to join the conversation on slack. The new standard for trunk roads in the USA is that they should be classified based on their overall route characteristics, not the individual road characteristics. The only highway type that is fundamentally classified by observable conditions is motorway (limited access, etc). Trunk, primary, and below should be tagged around their connectedness to cities of regional importance where an expressway connection does not exist.

The trunk route here is US 15 and it connects Harrisburg and Frederick. It should be tagged trunk except where it is a motorway. 26 is just fine as primary, as it has been superseded by I 70.

wrong account in JOSM

Boopington, please don't delete things just because they don't appear in imagery. We've been over this many times, especially around your changeset comments. You could have asked the person that added the roads (as I did) instead of deleting them and stating they "do not exist" without yourself verifying first.

Hi there. Elliott here with OSM Data Working Group. Another user deleted this data here: osm.org/changeset/123738022#map=15/32.0176/-81.1839 . Do you have it on good authority that the edits here do exist?

Joseph,

Thank you for this level of detail. And now you see precisely why this is reverted. The issue here is documentation and the proposal process. Asking in OSMUS Slack, discussing with one other person, and then executing this major of a change is not the way to go. I don't remember where the 50,000 rule was established but I have been involved in city classification going back 7+ years and that was the bellwether that I recall.

I applaud your call to classify cities more uniformly and will support your efforts provided I can review and comment. That is the only issue here. If you've never launched a proposal in the lists, I can assist there. Others beyond just the local slack channels will want to participate in the discussion.

Keep me posted!

Thanks,
Elliott

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/124053349. Ref: DWG Ticket: 2022072610000085

Since you've ridden this, also check out the relation which has a funky name that is not the same as what you've streamlined here: osm.org/relation/11101940/history That one may need renaming as well.

Hi there again, Welcome to the project! I'm glad to see you've been updating some bike maps. One comment is that there is no need to name things that don't have a name, social trails are fine to have the "informal=yes" tag and no name. Name should only be what is posted on the ground, on a sign.

Hi there, yes, you may not copy data from other maps into OSM. Especially not from Google. Sources for edits need to be your own surveying, or open-source data, of which Google is not. osm.wiki/How_We_Map See this for more

Thanks,

Elliott
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

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