Again, unacceptable, see osm.org/user_blocks/15408

This is an unacceptable changeset comment. Did you read the article I posted on your block? osm.org/user_blocks/15408

I love this geology editing! Please do more :)

Very good, thank you! I see you've completed the edits. While you're at it, what are your thoughts on the motorway portions of MD 4 and MD 4, both in the vicinity just east of here. All of these routes serve as high volume connectors getting suburban commuters to DC and beyond. MD 4 does have some limited access sections but it currently looks to be an isolated motorway.

Hi Joseph, thanks for your work on highways around the region. At this time I don't think we can consider MD 210 a limited access motorway. Bicycle are still allowed and are encouraged on the shoulders via the recent installation of several bicycle-only access points:

- way/1273822411
- way/1273822413
- way/1273822426

Although I don't think I would enjoy bike riding around on 210 near the beltway, it is allowed. Pedestrians are also permitted on the shoulders. Would you be opposed to rolling this back to Trunk?

Hi MNCPPC team, in this edit you have overidden a local user's survey of a recently demolished building. way/616949487/history/3

This building is no longer extant. Can you take a look at the process for reviewing demolished buildings?

welcome back!

Hi there. I'd just recently surveyed the new roadway alignments at the eastern side of the Key Bridge. I'm not sure who did it, but a lot of the roads have been mapped to outdated imagery. Bing is best here. Would you please take a look at the area just west of way/1263119636 and make sure it lines up to Bing?

Thanks,

Elliott

Hi there. I'd just recently surveyed the new roadway alignments at the eastern side of the Key Bridge. I'm not sure who did it, but a lot of the roads have been mapped to outdated imagery. Bing is best here. Would you please take a look at the area just west of way/1263119636 and make sure it lines up to Bing?

Thanks,

Elliott

Hi there. I'd just recently surveyed the new roadway alignments at the eastern side of the Key Bridge. I'm not sure who did it, but a lot of the roads have been mapped to outdated imagery. Bing is best here. Would you please take a look at the area just west of way/1263119636 and make sure it lines up to Bing?

Thanks,

Elliott

Mashin,

It is fine to leave the trail names even if you've added a relation. I find it destructive and counter productive to remove them. Here are some precedential examples:

1. [Queen's Loop @ Bryce Canyon NP](way/650406545). The most popular hiking trail in the United States.
2. [Angels Landing Trail @ Zion NP](way/14326868). Second most popular in the US. Includes a similar named route.
3. [Appalachin Trail @ Vermont](way/149171259) The AT hopefully needs no introduction. Looking at the VT relations most are named.

> This is actually quite common way of mapping hiking routes and makes the data more tidy.

This is not common in my experience and sure it is a more normalized but tidy data is not always to the most usable. I value usable data over clean data.

For every map that uses relations, there is another that doesn't. Please refrain from removing names from trails until there is consensus on the topic. Join the conversation on the OSM community forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/trails-use-name-and-or-hiking-route/110106

Thank you,
Elliott Plack
Data Working Group
OSMF

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 147119025, 147397568, 147397714.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/147515477 where the changeset comment is: reverting vandalism to US Capitol and nonsense edits adding parks where none exist

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/147515477 where the changeset comment is: reverting vandalism to US Capitol and nonsense edits adding parks where none exist

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/147515477 where the changeset comment is: reverting vandalism to US Capitol and nonsense edits adding parks where none exist

Agreed here, Andrew. It is common to use both ways for routability and area for cartographic precision. Both have a value. The data consumer can choose what to show/emphasize.

Should be fixed, please review. changeset/147192245

uh oh, sure I'll fix them. Odd that it passed all the josm checks that usually look at affected relations.

This one is interesting to me based on my time at the county. We had researched this and found it was a public road right to the end, paid for by taxpayers. It is on a public snow plow route. Did the gate look official?

Right, I saw that you had reverted and then wanted to know if you had discussed this as an import anywhere. I saw you have proposed an address import (which looked great) but these mass changes would also require some discussion. There is plenty of precedent for importing/adding CDPs (I've done it myself) but we do have a process for these things.

Cheers,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group