The problem is that you've deleted osm.org/way/127673486 and replaced it with a set of new pipelines of unknown source. The previous version was traced from aerials and field surveyed in places. Your recent version lists only Bing as a source. Are you saying you could tell the locations of four parallel underground pipes based on imagery? This is why you are blocked, this constitutes an import, regardless of whether you "hand verified" each point. The point of the import process is for the community to review the source. Had you simply modified the existing pipeline to be more correct based on your source, this would not appear as an import, but the wholesale deletion of others work and replacing it without consideration is intolerable.

Discuss the source of these edits with the community in the required fashion, e.g., in a public forum such as the imports-us mailing list, and then the DWG will consider lifting your 10-year ban.

-- Elliott
OSMF Data Working Group

Hello again, you can’t copy data from other maps to OSM without permission. Further, that map disclaims that the data may be inacurate. If it was accurate, the Brush River Trail is designated as a Shared Use Path which means bikes and peds are both allowed. The OSM tag that is best practice for shared use path is highway=cycleway + foot=yes.

Bicycle=no should only be used if there is a sign prohibiting bikes. A road may be unsafe but if it is still allowed, we don’t change the tags to prohibit bicycles.

Hi there, deleting a trail because it’s ‘not a trail,’ is not the way to go. Why isn’t it a trail? Is it closed? Private?

FYI osm.org/user_blocks/6865

This was not a cleanup, but rather a full scale replacement with invalid data. It appears that the source was highly generalized and this erases much of the work by other editors.

Hi there and welcome to OSM fellow Wandrer! I love your goal here. Keep it up. One note on the OSM side (I represent the OSM Data Working Group, in effect the regulator of the map). No Trespassing signs are better to be tagged as "access=no" as in, no trespassing. Private access is meant for things like driveways where private access is allowed. Add this to your OSM repertoire. Thanks!

Hi DUGA, I know that a lot of the fire roads in the reservoir are not maintained regularly but the track highway classification is a matter of designation rather than use. The idea is that tracks can support a four-wheel drive vehicle for forestry access, exactly what these are for. Many are now overgrown; I have seen it too.

This occasionally comes up in discussions whether they should be downgraded. The standard is to leave them as-is based on the designated use. Take a look at this recent discussion. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/conflicting-global-wiki-definitions-for-deciding-between-tracks-and-paths-based-on-passability/4540/4?u=elliottplack

Hi there, was there any discussion or documentation for this import? As you may be aware, we have a policy for importing data, such as these E-911 addresses. In this case, the all-caps addresses are in incorrect form for OSM. A community driven import would have flagged this. Please let us know within the next 7 days how you would like to proceed, i.e., fix this or have it reverted. Thanks!

Elliott Plack, OSMF Data Working Group

edit. that is set to a hiking trail so it may not show up on the bike maps, maybe it shouldnt? Do you know if the Mason Dixon Trail is also a bike trail? I saw you added the bike tags here.

Good point, I think you're right that the second name is that of the relation, edited by someone else not aware of adding those. I'd drop that name and leave it on the route. If you look on OpenCycleMap, you can see the relation clear as day.

Hi, thank you for mapping this. I have done some trail mapping in here but was unsure where the MD Trail runs. Do you know of any good reference maps for it (beyond OSM of course)?

Is that section actually named "Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Trail / Mason-Dixon Trail" with the slash like that? Sometimes folks get a little over enthusiastic about OSM trail naming (I realize you did not assign the name). osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Hi there, I see you recently surveyed the lower section of the Mason Dixon trail. The bridge towards the lower end is closed for construction, so I'm curious if that should still be a part of the trail.

Fixed it for you: osm.org/changeset/131210571

Hi there, please do not name things with a description. The name is for the name only. You can put the opening date in the opening date tag in the name tag.

—
Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Uh huh. This is a street complete edit. Are you familiar with app?

Hi there Trail Runner,

While we all appreciate your dedication to trail mapping, this sort of renaming of the C&O by milepost is a violation of the OSM policy that "Names are Names Only". See below. You need to correct these names immediately, to whatever they were before.

This edit split the path into dozens of unneeded segments to break it up by milepost too. That is unnecessary and adds a lot of clutter to the database, such as for the management of the plethora of relations that use this route.

The more I look at this, the more it looks like a full revert of this and the other C&O changeset may be warranted. Please help me understand what inspired you to name the trail this way and if there are any others that have been named this way.

Thank you,

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Yes, there’s a photo of it on the wiki, the one with the giant “NO”

Sent a warning via this block osm.org/user_blocks/6717