Hi Nick, thanks for the comments. However, the gates here precisely meet the OpenStreetMap definition of a private road. Please have a look at access=private

I visited the community myself and had to show identification and be 'buzzed in'. "Access is only with permission on an individual basis" (in the wiki).

This sounds like a data/routing problem for Suunto and Komoot to deal with in their platform. This meets the standard of what OSM would classify as a private road. I suggest that you reach out to the developers of those applications to provide a checkbox to allow routing on private roads. As you can see in this example router on the OSM website, there is no technical issue with routing on private routes.

osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=41.34018%2C-75.02718%3B41.32346%2C-75.05735#map=14/41.32874/-75.04177

This one is a little tricky. I set up duplicates because there is a CDP called Friendship Heights Village and then there is an incorporated placed called Village of Friendship Heights. The latter is what this represented.

What is tricky about this is that the incorporation is via something called a "Special Taxing District". Montgomery County treats this like a municipality. Here's a summary of some research I've done. This could be a good community post.

# Special Taxing Districts in Montgomery County

Montgomery County has three special taxing districts established before the county obtained home rule status:

- **The Village of Friendship Heights** (1914)
- **The Village of Drummond** (1916)
- **The Oakmont Special Tax District** (1918)

Each of these districts is governed by a citizen’s committee, has the authority to levy taxes, and exists to provide municipal services. For revenue purposes, the State and County treat these districts and the County’s **nineteen municipalities** as a single group.

This means they:
- Levy property taxes
- Receive a share of County "piggyback" income taxes
- Receive State and County grants

For simplicity, these three special districts and the nineteen municipalities are collectively referred to as **"municipalities"** in the report.

Source: https://montgomerycountymd.gov/olo/resources/files/2008-5.pdf

Thanks Brian! What are the updates, in general, for my understanding?

Hello,

This is Elliott from the Data Working Group. The recent change to this road is incorrect and needs to be reverted. Please roll it back.

The data you referenced is inaccurate. I worked directly with the local county government, and this road was officially changed in 2010 to simply Charles Street—without North—outside of Baltimore City. The designation N. Charles St. only applies within the city limits. At the county line, it becomes Charles Street.

A more reliable source for this information would have been state or local government data, rather than the U.S. Census, which is outdated for this purpose. In the future, please verify changes with authoritative local sources before making edits.

Let me know when this has been corrected.

Best,
Elliott

I am sorry I missed this message but thanks for sending me a ping. Publicly I'll admit these may not meet the true definition of administration. They do have limited special government oversight.

looks good here, thanks

Thanks for taking a look at these no longer used rails!

Hi jcarlson,

I’m interested in the approach you’re taking here—placing address nodes at the entrance rather than merging them into the building footprint. The usual convention is to merge the address into the building and then add an entrance node separately. Is this an experiment, or have you discussed this method with the OSM community?

Curious to hear your reasoning, as consistency in addressing is important for data usability.

–
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

hi there, Elliott here with the Data Working Group. This edit deleted a bunch of city names from the map (albeit over a decade ago). Was there any particular reason to delete all of that information?

Ah, I understand, the GSV guy added that tag.

Hey, whats going on with the reverts in this area? I see the max height was removed. mdroads surveyed these in person.

Nater,

In this changeset you deleted way/940070502 which broke the relationship definition for Ellicott City and Columbia. I am sure this was not intentional but do be mindful of how a data elements on the map may be involved in relations such that they don't appear to serve any purpose at first glance.

cheers!
Elliott

Hi, thanks for noticing! On taginfo we can see the material tag picked up after I added this. Do you want to update all these to the new standard? Fine by me! Cheers!

Thanks! It looks like node/11460968180 got moved way out of whack in this update. Can you doublecheck?

highway=footway are not typically mapped in the woods. You could add the informal=yes tag to designate that they are not formal trails.

osm.wiki/Bicycle#Bicycle_restrictions

Are you using Wandrer? footways show up there if they are inside of a park, so this would not help there. The best way to map difficult to ride paths in OSM is adding the smoothness and visibility tags. Then if I were you, I'd lobby whomever manages the apps you are using to not show paths that are 'impassible' or very bad smootness. Check out this link for more:

osm.wiki/Mountain_biking
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140859551

Hi there, looks like you are adding horse trails so they show up on Waymarked Trails or similar apps. Adding all of the trails in a park as a single route is not supported. Routes are designed to be from point A to point B. If you want to make these sorts of edits, you'll want to create individual routes for each path.

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159997491

Hi Matt, welcome to OpenStreetMap. It looks like you are here based on Strava or one of the various completionist apps that use OSM data. We welcome your edits but please be aware that mapping a path as bicycle=no when you don't think it is bicycle accessible is not how that tagged is supposed to be used. access=no or private or only for *legal* prohibitions. Please only add access/bicycle=no if there is a sign prohibiting access or if there is a gate (anything gated is fine as private). Please correct any issue in your edits where this is the case. Thank you!

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group
OSM Foundation

Bravo! The new update looks good, thank you for the details and all that you and the Lyft team do. I appreciate you.

nice find on these ones at the new warehouse, thank you! Could you say (via the imagery) if the land here is still accurate to note as being under contruction?

its gone, unfortunately Bark Social is out of business https://barksocial.com/blogs/news/bark-social-one-of-the-nation-s-largest-and-most-beloved-dog-bars-is-closing-its-doors