Awesome, thanks for looking out! I think that the prohibition might be a paper one. Let me know what you find.

Good day. What does the changeset comment, "..." mean?

Hello again. Thanks for reverting. The Bing imagery is old here, perhaps 2013? You can use this handy overlay tool to check the date of the Bing imagery: osm.wiki/Bing_imagery_analyzer_for_OSM

Hello there. The source data for this edit is all outdated. Would you consider reverting this edit? If you take a look at the Mapillary data here, you will see that the way that the map used to look was correct.

Hey there. I noticed you deleted the existing ways in this changeset. Why delete them and do it over?

forgot to mention in changeset: reviewed road types around the Tudor farms site and changes some to track / service depending on their appearance

I only learned of it when trying to figure out what those crazy triangles are for

Hey Pyram, it is covered by a lot of wetlands, but the land is owned by a massive christian youth camping organization: https://tudorfarms.younglife.org/Pages/default.aspx

Hi Imagico, thanks for the message. Despite the somewhat open-ended sounding changeset comment, I do believe these edits were faithful to the coastline continuity rules but let me know if I made an error. I have been doing the coastline work along the bay in manageable chunks. Looking at z5, I didn't think that it would affect the look on OSM.org strongly.

I have discussed these changes with some local editors but if you take a look at the coastline along here, you'll see that it doesn't get much attention. Separating it out as a water polygon would make it a bit easier to manage.

However, I will refrain from future coastline updates for now and speak to the community in more detail before resuming. We did have one talk-us thread about this which then (I thought) gave me approval to separate the smaller rivers.

Best,

Elliott

Great work here!!

If you look up and down the bay, I've been working on a project with others to removed these tidal rivers from the coastline, I think that we can simplify things by taking away the coastline and turning the rivers into multipolygons, which are easier to edit the edges of.

I imported a lot of the park and reserve lands through this area but it needs a ton of work, there is so much water.

Hey Choess, thanks for the help in this section the coastline is crazy complex. I just had a conflict with your edits, we were working on the same bridge (MD 335) at the same time, pretty coincidental!

The sidewalks need to be connected to the street network.

These should be connected to other roads.

Can you describe these edits in some more detail in the changeset comments? I'm seeing a lot of wonky intersection modifications and deleted ways.

Hey, for all of these changesets with the comment: "annapolis, aa county", what does that mean?

Sorry my apologies, you were using the water scheme correctly, the marley creek portion has the riverbank portion. Just looking at the data now.

The other issue is that these riverbanks are all just overlapping polygons, not relations, so you cannot have an island or show any relationships. I can fix it for ya and show the difference.

Thanks for the hard work! Most people don't use the older riverbank tag anymore, so I usually convert them when I see them. The natural = water and water = river scheme is more flexible because it supports access tagging, such as boat = no.