nice work retagging this. The user that made the edit got a block for that. I'm cleaning up elsewhere. Be on the lookout for that kind of thing.

Adam, a new user just altered the park you've edited, changing the tagging. Do you agree with the removal of the park tag? Have a look at osm.org/user_blocks/4667 and https://osmcha.org/changesets/96721540/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/80512229

These are not totally honest and accurate changes unfortunately. The problem here is using the recreation ground and access=yes tags on school grounds is disingenuous. School fields are typically public after school hours. The school grounds are not named things like "Southeast HIgh School Recreation Grounds". They are not named anything. (that one in particular isn't even on the SE high school property).

Adding the pitches is great, don't get me wrong, but don't imply they're publicly accessible when they're not. You can, I guess, add the recreation ground on top of the school ground but just don't give it a name unless it is really named that (with a sign or on some official document). All the detail is great, but don't alter the access without putting conditions on them (like access=permissive)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95882458

Looking further, I see you rolled back a bunch of changed I just added yesterday based on ground survey. You've removed the works tag from several plants in Cockeysville. Did you see these plants yourself to justify removing the works tag? Per the wiki these are well defined as works. man_made=works
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96674514

Hello there and welcome to OSM. The edits you've made here to several land uses in the Baltimore County area go against local custom. The land use is defined by the local government and we map the land use to the edge of the property boundary. What you're mapping is effectively land cover, e.g. what the land is covered by. In OSM we map what can be verified. I've personally verified the edges of many of these properties and use cadastral data to do so. Please do not alter these without checking the sources, and making a comment on the changeset. These edits are often meticulously researched and surveyed in person. On the areas you changed is one that I am sitting in right now, so I know what the land use is. The use of "zoning" tags, which are not recognized by anyone, is inaccurate too. The zoning of Baltimore County is complex and does not typically follow the parcel boundaries. It is also impossible observe.

Hello there and welcome to OpenStreetMap!! This is no import. As the source indicates I used lidar, imagery, parcel boundaries (a map service), and survey to trace the various landuses around Hunt Valley, MD, US. The local custom is to snap the landuse residential, commercial, and nature reserve to their parcel/legal boundaries which are observable/verifiable with a metal detector or ground truthing. I add the nature reserves around protected areas in my county, which are owned publicly or by a neighborhood association and are generally reserved for public use.

looks good!

I can add the coastline back to the Isle of Wight bay too.

Fixed here: changeset/95239563#map=14/39.3553/-76.6287

Hey there, thanks for resolving this, but when editing landuses like this, please be mindful of other overlapping landuse relations. This changeset broke the following relation. I will fix it now, so no worries, just be aware. relation/9353389#map=14/39.3450/-76.6294

Got it. Did a homeowner contact the DWG? I'm just curious how the feedback loop works, because I map a lot of trails don't usually get much feedback. I am not opposed to the change at all, glad you did it, just wondering about the process. Thanks!

Hi Marc! I see this change comes via a DWG ticket. Just curious what that one was about? I surveyed the area four years back but did not see any signs about it being private. Certainly that could have changed now though.

Did a little digging here and found the road has been private in OSM for about six years. The surface type is set to gravel, which is more specific than 'unpaved' and that further limits any kind of routing along it. Also interestingly, it is legally named Ruxwood Road, just like the rest of Ruxwood Rd per Baltimore County record plat 52/14 although the county does not sign it. Do you get pass-through traffic along it?

Understood. I live in the neighborhood too. Out of curiosity, what made you decide to edit the road on OSM?

Hi there, Welcome to OSM! I see you've marked this little road as private, but switched it to a path and added some extra tags. What is the source of this info?

Ha, you came across a bunch of my edits importing military areas. At the time there was a protect_class 25 for military, but I see that it has been deprecated. Have you fixed them all or do I need to go and look for some?

To all that are following this changeset, I wanted to point out that there is now an ongoing discussion in the tagging mailing list.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056310.html

I am reviewing that, and the comments here--I haven't forgotten about this.

Thanks for working on this!!

Do the named ways of the relation affect how those apps display the info? See how this coastline has a name? (It was like that before I edited it yesterday) way/591823494#map=14/37.8278/-75.4774

I like the idea of having it both ways. That way we could still have this relation and the level of detail around all of the water ways (instead of natural=bay points). Jochen, can you check to see how SF Bay looks on the renderer/data app you are using? I think we can reach an amicable solution for everyone here.