Hello there! Did you happen to see my other comments on some of these changesets? We waited 10 days before starting the rollback process. If this is really installed, and it sounds like it is, that is great, but there is no imagery or other data that can be used to verify this. What side of the roadway is the lane one? is it two way? are pedestrians allowed? There is a method to add these sort of things to OSM, I'd be happy to help with.

This looks good. The waterfront areas added are indeed city owned per https://opendata-salisbury.hub.arcgis.com/apps/city-owned-lands/explore
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109947572

Rolled this back in full by adding the cycleway right on the street changeset/110472747
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109947340

This changeset removed a crosswalks and traffic signals where there was no need to do so, and generally undid previous mappers work. There are a few useful edits here but they should be done individually, rather than in a big changeset like this. changeset/110472378
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109947187

This changeset is generally good. The new cycleway is in the MDOT dataset. It should be unabbreviated and unneeded crossings removed.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109946744

This changeset is mostly good, but some attention should be put into the roundabout added south of Beaverdam Creek
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109946410

Rolled this back in changeset/110471841
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109945618

This changeset introduced a few proposed lanes that haven't been installed. I rolled those ones back.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109945329

Rolled back most of the new lane added along Carroll because it is marked as proposed by the official SBY map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109944551

No park found here. Reverted in full changeset/110467699
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109944041

Rolled back the cycleway update in this changeset by adding a shared lane to Division Street here: changeset/110467395
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109943923

Hello again, I want to help fix some of this bike infrastructure you've added here to OSM standards. Do you have some time to chat about these, virtually? I think we could figure out what goes where.

Now, speaking of this edit, I think it would be fine to make the name "Bureau of Land Management - San Luis Field Office" though it is a mouthful. However, I must strongly advise against abbreviating the name. That is likely how "Tom" found this area in order to delete it. Acronyms run against OSM standard practices because a computer algorithm can easily abbreviate something, but abbreviations are hard.

You do sound cranky, but I get it! I have been mapping and importing protected areas on the east coast for years and am frustrated by what I call "landuse mappers" that have throwaway accounts and swoop in to untag major land reservations I've spent hours working on. I get it, seriously! That is why I support the well documented US PL Tagging schema, in defense of those edits. The landuse mappers are often of a different worldview where parks and nature reserves are not massive 10K+ acre areas but rather tiny parks in urban centers (or should I say 'centre'). The standard is not convoluted, it considers all of what OSM has to offer, and various ways people tag these federal places all over the US. Please join us in discussing this further. Most of this conversation happens in the #protectedlands channel in OSM US Slack. I stopped following the mailing lists in the 2014 ish era but stay heavily involved in the project through Slack, discord, and other outlets. There are a lot of enlightened people working on these problems.

Speaking of Slack, the way I found myself here in Colorado was via a request Andy Townsend posted on the Slack (see below).

Andy Townsend 1 day ago
Following a DWG request I've reverted http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=9197995 . If there's a more that needs changing there changeset/99092967 may be the place to start. (edited)

elliottplack:maryland: 1 day ago
on it

elliottplack:maryland: 1 day ago
relation/9197995 tagged in accordance with osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands#Bureau_of_Land_Management

Andy Townsend 1 day ago
It'd probably be worth pointing JOSM's validator at it as I suspect that might be some multipolygon issues that need looking at.

elliottplack:maryland: 1 day ago
Yes I noticed some of those. I’m not sure how to fix. It is the issues when two right angle corners share a node.

Read more: osm.wiki/Naming_conventions

Hi there. I made the update at the request of the DWG on OSMUS slack after they reverted it from someone that’d deleted the whole thing. Thought I was doing you a favor.

As for the tagging, it is a standard based on considerable discussion on slack, the mailing lists, and amongst people that are interested in such things. Please join us.

You’re welcome to change the name to something locals agree on. I took the name from the official source PADUS which is probably where you got the boundaries from. By OSM standards we shouldn’t put acronyms or abbreviations in names, which is why I removed it. Also, names aren’t descriptions, the two part name seems like a descriptive designation but again, I’m not a local.
Cheers

Hi there, appreciate the efforts here to add bicycle lanes and infrastructure around Salisbury, but this is not the way to do it. There are a couple of issues here. One, the cycleway should be tagged on the same roadway as the roadway--you should not ever create a new "way" for a cycleway unless it is a physically separated lane, like a buffered bike lane. cycleway=*

You will need to revise or remove all of these bike lanes.

Second, in OSM, we never abbreviate anything. Road names and lane names (if they are really named) should have their full spelled out name.

Third, it is improper and disruptive to other mappers to use a generic comment like "general transportation updates" in the comment. Each changeset should have a unique comment, see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi Scott, appreciate the effort here, but this is not the way to tag neighborhoods unfortunately. Generally, neighborhoods should only appear in OSM data if they are recognized administrative boundaries at the county level. I'm not sure if Montgomery County recognizes neighborhoods this way. Absent a formal boundary, you can still add neighborhoods to OSM a number of ways.

One of the most common is to map the residential landuse and add the name of the neighborhood to the area.

Another way, which can be done in addition to the first way, is to add a node at the center of the neighborhood and use the place=neighbourhood tag. Note the British English spelling. It is recommended to use a node to tag neighborhoods when the boundaries are inexact.

Take a look at the area in Baltimore County near Mays Chapel or Timonium for some examples. Or, look at administrative neighborhoods in Baltimore City. Feel free to send any questions.

-elliott

This changeset comment has nothing to do with changing the tagging for US National Parks. What's going on here?

A crossing could certainly be upgraded from marked to signals based on on-the-ground survey or street view. The developer of Street Complete is on Slack and based on a discussion about this subject, said he would improving the tagging recommendations accordingly.