Nice work. Just a suggestion: I would connect that thurmont trail to the nearest road, that way routing software can make the connection. I want to check that trail out in person, looks nice!

Looks good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_Hills

What is a chocolate hill?

Hi there. What is the purpose of this data? It appears that you're testing something. For testing, please use the sandbox map, here: osm.wiki/Sandbox_for_editing

Hi there. What is the purpose of these data? It appears that you're testing something. For testing, please use the sandbox map, here: osm.wiki/Sandbox_for_editing

Hi there, it seems this parking aisle doesn't connect to anything. See if you can connect it to the road, thereby making this driveable.

Not really a cliff but a steep incline?

Steve, a question about the US 340 / MD 67 Interchange. MD SHA specifically prohibits bicycles on this section of US 340. Does the USBR trump that prohibition, or perhaps could the SHA data not be up to date? I am working with SHA bike planners on building a signed, numbered, state-wide bicycle network, and this little issue has popped up once before. I think I remember reading that there was some consternation when you were doing this route, as to the this bridged part? Why doesn't it just go under on the AT?

Thanks,

Elliott

Note that some data in this changeset is under review for replacement: osm.wiki/Florida/Everglades_Agricultural_Area

Check out the end of the river system where there is some overlapping water and street networks: https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/120#issuecomment-190938303

* Loch Raven Reservoir ;) Nice work on this. I recognize the boundaries because I did a bunch of the cadastral research to get these boundaries into Baltimore County's parcel data. I think what was in there before was digitized from a set of plats for the property before I got around to COGOing it all in GIS. I can help with the DNR overlap.

Thanks for the help on my notes

some of these, such as node/227128783 seem to be part of ways that don't need to be deleted. Any chance for a partial revert?

Inadvertent changeset comment. Should have been something about correcting alignment and turn restrictions

Phil, that's specific enough! I'm fine with improvements of course, I had noticed that the state data left some things to be desired but hadn't been so sure which database was authoritative.
Agreed about that land database bit with regards to roads. I suppose we should say that if the park exists on both sides of a regular road, it includes it. I-70 is tougher but I think it probably could apply since a driver might see a sign that they're entering the park, and the ROW isn't really used for anything else besides the road a park. The ROW width usually has to do with the slope adjustments around the major elevation changes.
The only exception I would take is for power lines insofar as it is useful to tell park users that these are private property (if that is indeed the case).
I have some paper plats I can send you if you're interested.
Also did you want to join our slack chat?

Hey Phil, what were the changes you found? Just wondering :)

What's this changeset about?

I thought that looked odd in the app. I'll change it!

Thanks for the comment! I think you're right. This was a suggestion in that Pushpin app while I was surveying some stores here. I can remove this tag.