Oops, the source should also include "Esri World Imagery" for confirmation of the approximate location.

FWIW, technically the source should include "Mapillary Traffic Signs" because I took the precise location from there (via Osmose) after checking it was consistent with the approximate location from my survey.

I noticed that the remapping of shops from nodes to areas in this changeset lost some tags from shops I had previously edited. I restored those tags in osm.org/changeset/168573989. I haven't checked whether tags were lost from other shops in this changeset too.

Note that I haven't rechecked the validity of any of these tags; I'm assuming their removal in osm.org/changeset/145780465 was unintentional. Feel free to overwrite this changeset if you have information that is newer than when the tags were originally added prior to osm.org/changeset/145780465.

I am assuming the highway=primary tag was just a mistake in osm.org/changeset/76241229. If there is some justification for it, feel free to revert.

Are you sure that the time-conditional restriction is correct for the service road? I visited this location on January 15, 2025 and there was an unconditional "right turn only" restriction from the service road, like the one in this Mapillary image: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=38.9026429&lng=-77.0382639&z=19.243399386914778&mapStyle=OpenStreetMap&pKey=578009907499172&focus=photo&x=0.4265917848549031&y=0.3344586912640908&zoom=0.665217391304348 . (That's even stricter than the unconditional "no left turn" that OSM had before this changeset.) I suspect the time-conditional "no left turn" is intended for the main road, and that restriction is already mapped (osm.org/relation/6528323).

If you could recheck your imagery, that would probably be the quickest way to resolve this. Otherwise, I'll resurvey the restriction if and when I have an opportunity to visit the location again. Thanks!

It looks to me that the first relation added in this changeset (osm.org/relation/12475896) is redundant with the second (osm.org/relation/12475897): the first contains an extra via way. I suspect this may have been due to a glitch in the iD turn restriction editor. I deleted the redundant restriction in osm.org/changeset/166413518. Let me know if you disagree.

- The newest aerial image I could find in JOSM was from Esri World Imagery. Trace the building from there, adjust parking to not overlap, and delete the pitches since they're confirmed to be destroyed by the construction.
- Adjacent intersection changes from survey
I'm sure the campus could use a lot more work, but at least this is much better than what we had.

Changing the name of a piece of Castlegate Court to Stonehenge Place was an extrapolation; I'm assuming this was overlooked when Stonehenge Place was first extended east of Castlegate Court. I confirmed the other name changes from signage.

Since I didn't hear from you, I made the proposed change in osm.org/changeset/130691253 (finally; I got busy with other things).

This is mostly a revert of osm.org/changeset/130534543. See the previous discussion on osm.org/changeset/130018058.

As luck would have it, I went to the location today and saw that Towne Road is now open to Old Georgetown Road. Also, the entire segment between Josiah Henson Parkway and Old Georgetown Road is now a dual carriageway, but I don't have any source from which to draw the new ways accurately, so I'll leave that issue alone for now. So I think just reverting osm.org/changeset/130534543 will leave things in the correct state. Done in osm.org/changeset/130667240.

Oops, the "source" should have included Bing imagery.

Turns between Luxmanor Road and eastbound Tuckerman Lane would cross two double yellow lines. I wasn't confident that such turns are legal in general in this jurisdiction or advisable in this case. But there is a "do not block intersection" sign on eastbound Tuckerman Lane shortly before Luxmanor Road, and the only reason I can think of for that sign would be to accommodate a left turn from Luxmanor Road to Tuckerman Lane. So I'm presuming the left turn from Tuckerman Lane to Luxmanor Road is OK too. According to the "Roads are not to be mapped as dual carriageways" examples at the top of osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway, the relevant section of Tuckerman Lane should be mapped as a single carriageway regardless of whether the turns are OK, but if we didn't want routers to use the turns, I would have wanted to add restrictions in the same changeset.

I'm requesting review mainly for the change to the bus route (osm.org/relation/9686404) since I don't have a good understanding of how that's supposed to be represented.

Hi! On what basis did you decide that this segment is better described as highway=service than highway=path? Routers will send motor vehicles along a way with highway=service, but I was just at the location and I'm convinced that this way is not intended for motor vehicle traffic. For one thing, it's too narrow; it looks basically like osm.org/way/281335860 except that there are no gates at the ends. So I propose to change the tag back to highway=service. I'll notify osm-edit-escalations@amazon.com too as instructed on your user page, and if I don't get a response on this changeset in a week (by November 21), I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks for your attention!

Hi! What evidence do you have for the primary name of some of the way segments in this changeset being "Washington Boulevard"? Was this from TIGER? I just surveyed the location, and all the signage I could see says "Washingtonian Boulevard", not "Washington Boulevard". So I propose to change the primary name to "Washingtonian Boulevard". I can keep "Washington Boulevard" as the alt_name if there's a reason to do so. If I don't hear from you in a week (by November 19), I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks for your attention!

This is crude but better than not having the data at all. I added only the trails that were convenient to survey on one trip I was taking anyway; there are other trails that are not yet mapped. Coordinates could use refinement; they are from one trace of my GPS, which is not very accurate. Some tagging may also be suboptimal.

A correction to the "source" tag of this changeset: it should have included Bing imagery.

Obviously, this would have been much more valuable if I had done it right after osm.org/changeset/118146295. However, this road was well known as Montrose Parkway for many years, so I think there may still be some members of the public who are not yet aware of the rename or still think of the old name.

Survey date is 2022-04-04. (I am rushing and forgetting minor things...)

I neglected to mention another source: "copy tags from other locations on OSM".