nice work here. Can you take a look at the LL 93 relations? The part up on Warren Road seems to be missing. Not broken by you or in this changeset, just a general note.

Looks good

Nice, I am surprised many of these were not mapped already.

as you may know, some folks are contesting the addition of this sauna. If it is unauthorized, should it be access=yes?

node/9960648858

Thanks! This is about the project. It may open this week but I'm relying on others for solid ground survey https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dot-dte/projects/whiteflintww/index.html

Hi there, this road is still closed/under construction. It is supposed to be opening soon.

Done! changeset/130337582

Peter,

Thanks for your patience in my reply! I think you are right that this historic=boundary_stone is the better option here. I can change all of them.

Thanks Jess, I’m open to discussion on this. I hope I didn’t sound obtuse here. They do function as little Parks, but they don’t really have names. So I’m not really sure what the best tag would be. Is that a park or maybe recreation ground? When parks don’t have names I often use recreation ground but I’ve never been 100% sure if that is the right approach, also, there are more of these green areas along the roadway with a little path where I could probably go either way on grass or one of these recreational tags.

Ref: DWG ticket Ticket#2022121410000203 data@openstreetmap.org if you prefer email

Hi there, what is the source of the natural features mapped in this changeset? Is it simply traced from imagery? There is a fair amount of overlapping wetlands that don't seem to make sense. For instance, you have this wetland:
relation/13909443

and this one overlapping

relation/14460268

There are also upland islands, like this one below, that should not be part of the wetland, rather an inner ring.

way/632949570

Thanks,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Boopington. This is unacceptable. You must comment with something useful. You are now blocked again.

Hi Jess, what makes these parks "not parks"? They operate as community parks/greenspace in areas that were purchased for a highway that was never built.

Hi there, Elliott here speaking on behalf of the Data Working Group. In this changeset you'd deleted the UM BioPark polygon. Was that an error? I have restored it.

Eric, nice work on this! I am a fellow ECG editor and last worked on editing the greenway about a year ago. Thanks for the recent edits. Would you be interested in helping me track the progress via the wiki? https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/east-coast-greenway-relation-continuity-edits/6483

Also, are you affiliated with the ECG at all? In the past, for updates, I've used their official data (in collaboration with the staff) to make updates. Tell me about your process. Thanks!

123456!

oh, I see now about the detour so this make more sense! thanks for tagging it. I just asked the 9/11 Trail folks if they'd like the trail rerouted to follow the detour during the closure.

Hi Michal! What sort of barrier is the one at the entrance to the tunnel? A bollard perhaps?

Just a note to be wary of maintaining route connectivity when adding crossings. I know you know this already. In a few instances I see crosswalks were added and, in the process, broke the East Coast Greenway relation.

Ex: way/1087560668#map=19/39.28059/-76.61138
way/1087560666#map=19/39.28057/-76.61134
way/1087560667#map=19/39.28078/-76.61146

Since you're editing in JOSM, try the "Colorize bicycle routes" map paint style. Thanks!

(I've got a changeset open now so no need to fix, I got them.)

wow, nice work on this one!