FYI, I've blocked Zluuzki for this action. Please read osm.org/user_blocks/6573

nice work on this Greg!

Hey, FYI I fixed this for ya by adding the full extent of the EEZ. You can now see the arc is properly drawn. It will take some time to refresh. way/640962318

Thanks for reverting. I think the pipeline data is actually useful data for the project and I would support adding them. These blocks however are meaningless as localities. This part could have been dropped from the import.

@pitscheplatsch looks like your link is wrong by a digit. Here is the original changeset. changeset/129300298

Hello again, some trouble with this edit, similar to the comment over on changeset/127644478

Have a look at way/535792738 for instance. This should not be restricted. It would appear you'd selected all of the roads around the BW Parkway with a lasso tool and JOSM and forgot to remove these. That is a simple mistake but this would drastically alter bicycle routing along Laurel Bowie Road.

Thank you,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there, which "MD bicycle route network map" specifically was this edit in reference to? MDOT SHA has been adjusting their restrictions lately and there is some out of date information online. Also, it would appear that a few of the routes marked as prohibited are either, not prohibited, or not necessary. Motorways are bicycle=no by default so it may not be necessary to add these tags to them.

Did you happen to check any of these on the ground? On OSM we have a policy of not copying from other maps, and in this edit you're claiming to have copied from another map. I see more bike/ped access changes by you around Maryland that may also be out of date.

Please let us know how you came across the information used to update these roads.

Thank you,

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group

Thank you, Aleksey! Have a great day.

Hi Aleksey, I came across this edit because I-95, the busiest highway in the United States, does not carry any name between DC and Baltimore. It is simply "I-95" which is reflected in the route ref. Am I to assume this edit is related to Mapbox Mapping teams' support of road navigation? By local custom and OSM standard, names should not be applied to things that are not named. Nearby motorways may have names, e.g. The "Baltimore Washington Parkway" but I-95 most certainly does not. Please roll back this change. This has been discussed previously in OSM US slack (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1629488217256300). See also, osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

I look forward to your response.

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group

Hi, you will not remove it! It is ok to have both. One is for routing, one is for visual representing the full ped path plaza.

Hey there, looks like you dropped the name from the trail. Was that intentional? Although the name of the trail is also on the relation, it is still appropriate and conventional to add the name of the trail to the path itself, as many viewers (and editors) do not see the relations or understand them.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/no=yes

We also have yes=no 🤔

The interpolation work here was pre-import of buildings. 10 years ago, holy cow!

Oh, you could be right! I was looking for a good fit too but there isn’t a great “landuse”=governmental. If you look in Berlin or something they have the govt offices but USDA is so big it doesn’t really fit that. I’m fine if you want to just remove it. Maybe it’s a nature reserve?

love this! Please import them all. I will support you on this full stop. We can work on the proposal if you'd like.

Nice catch! so the one part of Walther is still closed?

Thank you for working on my challenge! I see you have completed all of these. Great work.

No problem, I am just doing a little investigating here to see if I can trace it back to a source, then we can update that. In the meantime, yes there are a few great MTB resources on OSM's wiki. In short, mtb=yes is used on paths that are MTB suitable...

- - osm.wiki/Mountain_biking#How_to_tag_ways_appropriate_for_mtbiking
- mtb=*

Cheers,
Elliott

I took a look at my old run through and see where the issue is. At some point the track was merged with a larger trail. Only the straightaway section that comes off DV Rd is a track, the rest is path. It is important because horses are only allowed on the track sections.

As for the path tag, it is the preferred tag for woods paths/trails, whereas footway is meant for pedestrian features near road. There is a lot of nuance to that, I apologize, but it is well known/documented. I fixed the one section of track and left the rest alone here.