This was not an appropriate change, the description only applied to the name, so it should be name:description. Don't remove specificity in an automated fashion

I changed them to official_name here: changeset/188016961, and extended the National Mall relation.

Relegated individual portion names to official_name (except for L'Enfant Park, which isn't even official), no locals call them this, it's all known as the National Mall. This map shows that NPS considers the sub-names somewhat official: https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=b757bf31a979440c81254e4ee2a029a7. It also includes the museums on either side in the parks.

Hey there, I was traveling so didn't look at this till now. I've removed the park tagging from the National Historic Site: changeset/188016483. I'm leaving the spiky polygon for now, it might be some arcane property boundary or something.

If you'd like to help/lead standardization of protected area tagging in DC please do start a wiki page, I'm sure the local mapping community would be glad to help! You're also welcome to chime in on the OSM US Slack: https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/, a few of these edits were discussed on the dc channel there.

Hey there, I'm also not a local in this area, I was just visiting when I updated the tags here. However, it seems like the changeset you linked changed the name of the building, but also added an area representing the overall hotel grounds: way/1520316794. I actually think their change might have been correct. Per the hotel's website, the main building is actually called the Victorian: https://www.hoteldel.com/resort-map/. Given the many parts of the hotel, mapping it as an area is probably more correct. I'd probably just dual-tag it as tourism=hotel instead of just leisure=resort though.

Is this kind of tagging really merited for a temporary feature? This is being built and taken down again in the course of one month

Hi there, glad to see you here on OpenStreetMap improving the map around Harpers Ferry NHP! MassCartog already gave you a nice overview of the OSM best practices, so I won't rehash it. I just wanted to also contribute to the conversation as the mapper who initially added a couple of these social trails, such as way/1531031373/history.

I did this after a lovely visit to your park in June (I'm local to DC). My intent was not to cause any harm to the ecosystem in the park, but to better reflect the on the ground conditions. For context, I was following an OSM-based map on the Maryland Heights Trail and I was confused what to do: I knew I had to turn right, but there was a fork in the road not on the map. I later saw it led to the same place (and saw many people not using any maps use it), so I added the path to OSM so that future hikers would know it was there. I tagged it as not the official path (informal=yes), and also added the guidepost further on that shows where to actually turn for the official trail: node/13954039497. I made both edits simply to help future trail users determine where they were.

I am very happy you have clarified on the map that the paths are prohibited for use by NPS by adding access=no! In many apps, this will soon render as such: a path that exists on the ground but which is expressly prohibited for use. For instance, in AllTrails, paths tagged like this render in red with "No Access" written on top of them. I see this as an even better solution than not having the paths mapped at all, which allows naive users like me to think they're just missing. It takes some time for the various apps to ingest the updated data, usually a month or two, so you might not see the results of your changes (or of deleting it) right away.

OSM mappers (who like myself are mostly hobbyists/volunteers) are grateful when land managers take an active interest in maintaining and improving the map in their areas. I also want to add a note of thanks for listening to and respecting our policies, which makes the map products that many people use better for everyone. Us OSM mappers also aim to respect the parks and those who manage their use for all of us. In case you weren't aware, there is a US Trail Stewardship Initiative between OSM, US land managers (including other NPS units), and hiking apps that seeks to balance everyone's interest, which you might be interested in: osm.wiki/United_States/Trails_Stewardship_Initiative. And please don't hesitate to message me personally if you would like any further help with improving Harpers Ferry in OSM!

Thanks!
Will (username willkmis)

How come this changeset deleted Carmine's on 7th St NW? node/2419110695. It seems like it still exists: https://carminesnyc.com/locations/washington-dc

Was there a reason to delete the old one and replace it with a new object? That seems to have violated the "keep the history" principle of OSM. I agree with the name change though

In this change you seem to have moved around the boundaries for "Seaton Park East", "Seaton Park West", and "Henry Park" (the objects predated this change). But I can't find any proof they are actually called that anywhere? There is this Smithsonian article that discusses it: https://siarchives.si.edu/blog/quidditch-henry-park. Do you have proof of their boundaries somewhere?

For instance, this NPS map seems to show both designations encompassing much more area than you've cut them down to: https://www.nps.gov/npgallery/GetAsset/fc2d8431-d777-4671-bd6e-48b4902585a6

Hey there,
It looks like in this and in a few other changesets, you really changed the boundaries of the National Mall park relations. It seems we're left with two small relations: relation/21064981 and relation/21062691, that don't seem to encompass what I thought defined the National Mall and the National Mall and Memorial Parks areas. Can you clarify what sources you were using for these changes and what your goal was?
Thanks!
Will

Hello Jenny,
Thanks for explaining the issue in more detail. Coincidentally, I actually used to live right around the corner on Mentone Ave, so I can definitely sympathize with how annoying all the cut-through traffic must be and how jammed up Overland and Venice can get!

I'll echo spatialia and say that Glendon Ave's current OpenStreetMap tagging of highway=residential already communicates that it's a local access road that routers shouldn't favor for through traffic, but is nonetheless a part of the city road network and legally open to the public. So highway=service isn't appropriate, that's for alleyways and driveways and the like, not roads that provide the main access to the buildings along it.

While it's tempting to add access=destination, in OSM we adhere to an "on the ground" principle. So to tag that there has to be a sign, like "No Through Traffic", or a well-known law that prohibits it. I don't think either are the case here.

Really, whichever routers are suggesting Glendon as a cut through to avoid Overland need to penalize leaving a major street more strongly. Helpfully, another OpenStreetMap mapper has just added the existing speed bumps to Glendon: changeset/186150201. That will hopefully deter any truck routers that use OSM at least, although each system considers slightly different aspects of the roads. And we're no help with Google or other proprietary maps unfortunately.

Hope this helps! And sorry if it's more info than you might have bargained for haha.
Best,
Will

Hi there, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! In this edit it looks like you changed Glendon Ave to a private driveway, which I think is a mistake. Is there something else you were trying to do? In the meantime I'm reverting this change.

Reverted in changeset/185406122

Should this really be in OpenStreetMap if it's completely defunct and mostly razed? It seems better suited for OpenHistoricalMap

The name of the city is definitely just Washington, just like the name of Cleveland is not Cleveland, OH. Reverting this

This is quite a spiky polygon that does not align with the mapped buildings, can you share your source? Also, I don't think leisure=park is an appropriate tag for sites like this per the wiki definition, and you seem to have removed the website link and fee information rather than transferring them.

Just noticed this change. I really don't think Highway 1 along the coast here should be trunk. It's not a major through route between major cities and is famously not a high speed route, at this point it's basically just used for touristic purposes and to link very small communities.

Are these really railway=abandoned? It doesn't look like there is any trace left on the ground, which might mean it doesn't belong in OSM. This information might be better for OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/about