Here's an example of how to interconnect the roods, water, and scrubs you can use as a template (esp if you want tobe meticulous about it). Craft mapping! changeset/108833862

One comment is to avoid snapping the woods to the road way or edge of the boundaries. I'll look for some written guidance somewhere. It is not a big deal, just something that can make it harder for other mappers down the road. :)

Looking good here!

Here's a good example area at Patapsco: osm.org/#map=16/39.3035/-76.7848

The area does have the green outline showing it as a protected area space. I find it to look good to add woods, scrub, meadow, and grass as applicable. The main thing to avoid is using the protected area line as a shared boundary with the woods/land cover. It is best if those two features stay distinct, that way editors don't have the compunction to move the protected area boundary (which is typically established by law/title) based on a visual change, like a tree cut.

Right, the best way to make those park areas light up on the OSM website is by adding ground cover. Check out Patapsco Valley State Park for instance. The leisure=park tag is designed for small urban parks with manicured lawns, benches, fountains, stuff like that. In the US, we've taken the word "park" and applied it to big swathes of land where the intended reason for buying the land is preservation (with some limited recreation). There's a whole conversation around this and a variety of other OSM related topics on the OpenStreetMap US Slack if you're interesting in discussing. We'd love to have you. Join us on the #protected_lands channel.

Hey there, saw you'd requested some help a while back with Rock Creek Regional Park. I imported the park boundary back in 2013 and it has been adjusted since, far outside of what MNCPPC designates as park/nature reserve land. I just updated the boundaries of both the regional park and the stream valley park, so everything should be good along Rock Creek now. You'll notice the lower portion is no longer "park" in OSM lingo. This is intentional. The US Public Lands wiki details this more, but generally large woody areas that are preserved for conservancy and some occasional recreation should be tagged as nature_reserve rather than Park. The NR areas still appear "green" on most maps that use OSM though, it is more of a landuse technical designation. Cheers, Elliott

relation/13023491#map=12/39.0906/-77.1018

relation/1086322#map=15/39.1164/-77.1207

changeset/108646867#map=14/39.1834/-77.0549

I've performed the merge. Lots of the residential and school areas now overlap the park, because I got the latest park boundaries in the process. Those should be corrected, e.g. move residential area so it doesn't overlap the park. Consider the park boundaries authoritative straight from MNCPPC

Holy Cow!!

https://mcatlas.org/parks/?find=P42&extent=-8583510.4524%2C4740197.8213%2C-8568624.3411%2C4753946.9318%2C102100

Probably can merge them all into one area. I imported that data almost ten years ago. I bet MNCPPC has a better naming system now.

Don't be surprised if a random throwaway account comes and removed the leisure=park tag and changes it to something else. It has been a real battle :) leisure=park#Mapping_history_in_the_USA

See sheet 3: https://gis.baltimorecity.gov/zoning/blockplats/3499.pdf

Speaking of which, do you think the zoo should be removed from the park (set to inner?) The zoo is not publicly accessible without paying a fee, and is 100% fenced. I've been many times, its a nice zoo, but have thought about removing it from the park MP. Recently I've been working on a project to recategorize large state parks from park to nature_reserve and have thought about this in the city. Gwynn Falls is more of a candidate for that treatment though, as is the back part of Druid. Either way, I think it'd be more right to show the zoo outside of the 'green' area.

Also, I'm about to pop out a small inner piece from the park that I noticed on the code map is not publicly owned, there's a tiny parcel that someone paid $2M for inside the zoo for what looks like some sort of animal hospital facility.

Someone at Rec&Parks has hand manicured the park data there, and at other sites, if you look closely at the data geometry vs what's in the parcel database. I like to refer to the city's CodeMap to verify ownership of public property (Green on there) and other things and if you look there, the parcel doesn't remove the roads. It begs the question though on what is exempt and what is not. Greenspring Ave for instance is still not exempted. This gets into the old OSM debate over landuse mapping and what's legal vs what is observable. I think what we have here at Druid now is probably fine. I personally wouldn't change it back.

By local custom the areas where streets go through a park are not typically 'exempted' from the polygon like you would have in a parcel based dataset. I think of OSM as more of an abstraction in that regard. Sure DOT owns the lane where 83 or 29th is but the little multipolygons add some complexity to the map that may be unneeded. What do you think?

Do you have a source for the JFT Roland Ave route? Was that one I made? I can't find it listed on the official city map as a route, but the route wayfinding can leave some things to be desired too.

In addition to using out of date information, this changeset uses the wrong addr:state format. addr:state should use the two letter abbreviation, i.e. "MD" per the wiki addr:state=*?uselang=en

The campus map information cited over 12 years old, from 2009. Please Revert, as John suggested. The current map can be found here: https://maps.umd.edu/map/

Thank you I saw that yesterday as well and meant to update it back to parking aisle so I appreciate the update. I even snapped a photo of the lot restriction to put in OSM :D

https://www.strava.com/activities/5623116671