Uh huh. This is a street complete edit. Are you familiar with app?

Hi there Trail Runner,

While we all appreciate your dedication to trail mapping, this sort of renaming of the C&O by milepost is a violation of the OSM policy that "Names are Names Only". See below. You need to correct these names immediately, to whatever they were before.

This edit split the path into dozens of unneeded segments to break it up by milepost too. That is unnecessary and adds a lot of clutter to the database, such as for the management of the plethora of relations that use this route.

The more I look at this, the more it looks like a full revert of this and the other C&O changeset may be warranted. Please help me understand what inspired you to name the trail this way and if there are any others that have been named this way.

Thank you,

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Yes, there’s a photo of it on the wiki, the one with the giant “NO”

Sent a warning via this block osm.org/user_blocks/6717

Hi there Mykol404. I didn't see an entry for these parking lots in the osm.wiki/Import/Catalogue

Could you provide us with any documentation on this import, e.g., discussions with other mappers, a source dataset, a wiki page, etc.?
--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Hi there,

Please don’t invent access tags for roads on military bases. This causes problems for data consumers that interpret OSM data. access=military has no definition on the OSM wiki. Private access means that the general public is not allowed. That is certainly the case at NSA / Meade.

Thanks for understanding,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there, welcome to the OSM project. I see you requested a review. These edits look good at first glance. What inspired you to try your hand at lane editing?

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.