| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 135441471 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-04-27 19:36 | 1 | 2025-06-13 15:18 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10847001792/history has fixme:type = no hunting that was added in this editIs it mapping 'no hunting' sign? Is it mapping something else? |
| 2 | 2025-06-13 15:25 | ElliottPlack | Hi Mateusz! It is indeed mapping a no-hunting sign--that is very observant of you. This may be that same issue we were discussing with the EveryDoor developers on GitHub. Although I cannot remember exactly what button I pressed in the UI, I believe my intent was to say, "there is a thing here t... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-13 15:36 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | what about man_made=sign inscription=no hunting?orman_made=sign sign=no hunting? | |
| 4 | 2025-06-13 17:01 | ElliottPlack | It is done! https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167584206 | |
| 140758499 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-09-03 13:18 | 1 | 2025-05-02 11:21 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11165028648/history has fixme:type = steps that was added in this editIt should be mapped as line with highway=steps ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dsteps ) - not as this weird fixme object |
| 137752367 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-06-25 13:18 | 1 | 2025-03-31 15:38 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11005630687/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? |
| 145112033 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-12-14 13:14 | 1 | 2025-03-20 11:53 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11417225861/history - what this Mend object is representing?Is it some type of shop? If yes, which one? |
| 2 | 2025-03-22 14:57 | ElliottPlack | Good find. I made this edit with everydoor so it must have been a bug. I don’t remember what shop it is now. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-24 04:15 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | https://github.com/Zverik/every_door/issues/880 may be of interest (I quoted you in https://github.com/Zverik/every_door/issues/880#issuecomment-2746836504 - I hope that it is fine)I am trying to figure out how to reduce ratio of such weird fixme objects appearing | |
| 4 | 2025-03-25 04:02 | ElliottPlack | No worries at all, thanks for following up. I wrote a comment on GH. | |
| 160114162 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-12-10 04:00 | 1 | 2025-02-21 16:26 | Nick Karasev ♦1 | Please undo the change that made all roads in Hemlock Farms community private. While this is somewhat correct (this is a gated community), making the roads private effectively turns them invisible for route planning software that relies on OSM such as Suunto and Komoot. The roads are very much acces... |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 03:33 | ElliottPlack | Hi Nick, thanks for the comments. However, the gates here precisely meet the OpenStreetMap definition of a private road. Please have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3DprivateI visited the community myself and had to show identification and be 'buzzed in'. "... | |
| 102877282 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-04-13 16:19 | 1 | 2024-12-29 17:41 | ZeLonewolf ♦559 | If Towson East is a "real" boundary (by whatever definition of real makes sense in Maryland), it should get converted to a boundary relation. |
| 2 | 2025-02-13 02:18 | ElliottPlack | I am sorry I missed this message but thanks for sending me a ping. Publicly I'll admit these may not meet the true definition of administration. They do have limited special government oversight. | |
| 108368128 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-07-21 13:20 | 1 | 2024-12-13 19:44 | Dimitar155 ♦661 | Hey Elliott,It seems like paving_stones:material=brick is a more popular tag compared to paving_stones:type.https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paving_stones%3AmaterialHappy mapping,Dimitar |
| 2 | 2024-12-14 02:03 | ElliottPlack | Hi, thanks for noticing! On taginfo we can see the material tag picked up after I added this. Do you want to update all these to the new standard? Fine by me! Cheers! | |
| 3 | 2024-12-14 08:44 | Dimitar155 ♦661 | I've just updated them (changeset/160271772). | |
| 138244041 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-07-07 20:43 | 1 | 2024-12-08 19:50 | DUGA ♦549 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17604631/history#map=16/38.80687/-75.75200This road has not been paved, if I remember correctly, for over 10 years |
| 102947554 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-04-14 18:49 | 1 | 2024-11-08 00:58 | HMC3rd ♦3 | Elliott - I disagree that this "stub end" is a driveway and not a road. I biked there this morning and it seems clearly part of Montrose Avenue. Also, looking at Baltimore County OpenData lot outlines leads me to believe this is indeed a continuation of public RoW for Montrose Avenue. I... |
| 2 | 2024-11-09 03:09 | ElliottPlack | Henry, Good find, I think you're exactly right. I was aware of the little stub being public and am not sure why I changed it to private. I've been down there many times as my parents lived nearby until just recently. I've just edited it back though I did not merge it so as to preserve... | |
| 110471841 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-08-30 17:04 | 1 | 2021-08-30 17:31 | WRW88 ♦5 | This is a separated and protected lane, completed & opened 7/15/2021. |
| 2 | 2021-08-30 17:36 | ElliottPlack | Hello there! Did you happen to see my other comments on some of these changesets? We waited 10 days before starting the rollback process. If this is really installed, and it sounds like it is, that is great, but there is no imagery or other data that can be used to verify this. What side of the road... | |
| 3 | 2021-08-30 17:49 | WRW88 ♦5 | The Cycle track is there. It is a conventional cycle track, one lane on each side moving in same direction as the adjacent carriageway in the Dutch style, separated by parking and planted concrete medians. The official GIS data from Salisbury shows it as existing which is why its a solid line, rathe... | |
| 4 | 2021-08-30 17:56 | ElliottPlack | Thank you. I have added the sections where it is a regular lane, near Small Street, and a Sharrow over the bridge. I will restore the protected lane per your description here! Have any photos of the facility? I want to get down there and check it out. | |
| 5 | 2021-08-30 18:05 | WRW88 ♦5 | I have pictures of it under construction, but not since. I can get some - medians aren't scheduled to be planted until October to increase survivability of the plantings so the City has not pushed out a press release or anything until that happens - but it is open and under use. | |
| 6 | 2021-08-30 18:05 | ElliottPlack | Added this backhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/977933839https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/977933838 | |
| 7 | 2024-07-16 15:14 | nonimpedimenta ♦2 | Would it make more sense to map this as a tagged cycle track on Fitzwater St rather than mapped separately?At the very least it should be tagged on Fitzwater St that the bicycle lane is mapped separately. | |
| 110883406 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-08 00:39 | 1 | 2024-06-24 14:42 | DUGA ♦549 | Any legit reason to map this?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9072284523#map=19/39.72099/-76.66365 |
| 2 | 2024-06-24 19:52 | Allison P ♦1,136 | Any legit reason not to? | |
| 3 | 2024-06-24 19:57 | DUGA ♦549 | The state boundary is already there. | |
| 4 | 2024-06-25 02:34 | ElliottPlack | It is there on the ground, so it can be mapped. We can map signs and borders. It shows the state maintenance may not follow the state line, as is sometimes the case. | |
| 153011246 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-06-21 23:01 | 1 | 2024-06-23 14:09 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153011246 |
| 153011260 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-06-21 23:02 | 1 | 2024-06-23 14:06 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153011260 |
| 153011326 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-06-21 23:07 | 1 | 2024-06-23 14:06 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153011326 |
| 153053182 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-06-23 05:22 | 1 | 2024-06-23 13:16 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153053182 |
| 152616181 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-06-13 06:25 | 1 | 2024-06-13 06:25 | ElliottPlack | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 152613794, 152613801, 152613804, 152613806, 152613809, 152613812, 152613815, 152613817, 152613820, 152613824, 152613830, 152613852, 152613857, 152613860, 152613863, 152613867, 152613870, 152613873, 152613875, 152613880, 152613884, 152613886... |
| 2 | 2024-06-13 06:38 | hwanderer ♦2 | thank you! | |
| 152616056 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-06-13 06:22 | 1 | 2024-06-13 06:22 | ElliottPlack | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 152613852, 152613857, 152613860, 152613863, 152613867, 152613870, 152613873, 152613875, 152613880, 152613884, 152613886, 152613889, 152613891, 152613895, 152613899, 152613901, 152613904, 152613906. |
| 151265136 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-05-13 12:38 | 1 | 2024-05-13 12:38 | ElliottPlack | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 151211757, 151214716, 151235269, 151243280. |
| 67508303 by ElliottPlack @ 2019-02-24 04:52 | 1 | 2024-04-03 03:27 | Sparks ♦38 | Elliott, is this supposed to be a camp_site? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/672589251/history#map=18/39.28972/-76.53436 |
| 147515477 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-02-16 04:41 | 1 | 2024-02-16 04:41 | ElliottPlack | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 147119025, 147397568, 147397714. |
| 147076922 by ElliottPlack @ 2024-02-05 03:56 | 1 | 2024-02-06 12:46 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hi there,This changeset broke https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9436140 in three different places: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11586027018https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11586028023https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11586027664Could you please fix this when you have a ch... |
| 2 | 2024-02-07 20:26 | ElliottPlack | uh oh, sure I'll fix them. Odd that it passed all the josm checks that usually look at affected relations. | |
| 3 | 2024-02-07 20:40 | ElliottPlack | Should be fixed, please review. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147192245 | |
| 4 | 2024-02-09 14:19 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Looks good, thanks! | |
| 144121471 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-11-17 04:23 | 1 | 2023-11-17 04:25 | ElliottPlack | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 139637619, 139637789, 139637826, 139637920, 139637951, 139637958, 139637972, 139638093, 139638358, 139638370, 139638385, 139638414, 139638452, 139638463, 139638474, 139638496, 139638519, 139638581, 139638628, 139638657, 139638671, 139638738... |
| 138588404 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-07-16 17:29 | 1 | 2023-10-15 18:27 | akadouri ♦58 | I think you may have mislabeled the building type on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/276259881 it looks like it's a recreation center part of the state park https://parks.ny.gov/parks/robertoclemente/details.aspx |
| 2 | 2023-10-16 17:01 | ElliottPlack | Thanks for finding that. I was doing SC on the go and must have meant to select an adjacent building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285901149). I updated the building just now. | |
| 139448694 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-08-04 16:07 | 1 | 2023-10-08 22:46 | maxerickson ♦234 | Seems a different prep workflow might make sense if the survey isn't going to follow shortly after the removal. |
| 2 | 2023-10-09 14:36 | ElliottPlack | Max, is there a problem? I went around the next day and updated all the ones that I could find with SC: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139484916I added the 'paved' tag without surveying a few years ago and after a few spot checks, noticed some of these were not paved so I remo... | |
| 3 | 2023-10-09 15:06 | maxerickson ♦234 | I only checked several of the ways, there are more than a couple that do not have surface information, which lead me to believe that no survey was done on those ways. | |
| 138560239 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-07-15 21:33 | 1 | 2023-07-16 17:59 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | Hydrant in the middle of the road?🤨 --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138560239 |
| 2 | 2023-07-16 18:03 | ElliottPlack | Side of the road | |
| 137176039 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-06-10 15:18 | 1 | 2023-06-17 01:29 | Minh Nguyen ♦567 | 👌 |
| 134702519 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-04-09 20:05 | 1 | 2023-04-22 00:54 | DUGA ♦549 | Gong Cha and Kyoto Matcha are combined together as the sweetest spot. |
| 2 | 2023-04-24 19:55 | ElliottPlack | Oh, I didn't see that. How do you think it is best to handle? The one has a brand wikidata. | |
| 3 | 2023-04-24 20:01 | DUGA ♦549 | Good question, I simply don’t know. A relation is really complicated, but I guess there is no other choice | |
| 134589968 by ElliottPlack @ 2023-04-06 19:00 | 1 | 2023-04-06 19:02 | ElliottPlack | Work also included: trails and tracks at Copper Mine. Drains and culverts. All base on a hike: https://www.strava.com/activities/8842906698 |
| 45609130 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-01-29 02:23 | 1 | 2023-02-09 15:37 | DUGA ♦549 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160689754/historyThis should be a path, it does not qualify as a road anymore based on my on site survey. |
| 2 | 2023-02-09 17:33 | ElliottPlack | Hi DUGA, I know that a lot of the fire roads in the reservoir are not maintained regularly but the track highway classification is a matter of designation rather than use. The idea is that tracks can support a four-wheel drive vehicle for forestry access, exactly what these are for. Many are now ove... | |
| 119269247 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-04-03 15:37 | 1 | 2023-01-12 01:07 | DUGA ♦549 | A dentist should not have a nails name.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3019372372/history |
| 2 | 2023-01-12 02:48 | ElliottPlack | Uh huh. This is a street complete edit. Are you familiar with app? | |
| 3 | 2023-01-12 02:50 | DUGA ♦549 | No, I just corrected it. Is it a bug? | |
| 126516519 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-09-22 18:03 | 1 | 2023-01-06 14:20 | DUGA ♦549 | I saw the sign of no bike and no horse. |
| 2 | 2023-01-06 17:09 | ElliottPlack | Yes, there’s a photo of it on the wiki, the one with the giant “NO” | |
| 127681284 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-10-17 16:04 | 1 | 2022-12-17 18:48 | pkoby ♦110 | Hey Elliott,I just saw these boundary markers when I was browsing on Organic Maps. They show up more prominently than I expect they should because they're tagged as historic=monument. Despite what they're called, osm usage of "monument" is for large things (https://wiki.opens... |
| 2 | 2022-12-21 14:53 | ElliottPlack | 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. | |
| 3 | 2022-12-21 14:57 | ElliottPlack | Done! https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130337582 | |
| 109289557 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-08-07 01:21 | 1 | 2022-11-07 03:54 | DUGA ♦549 | I plan to remove the footway polygon here. Just like highway, they do not need to be in polygon.https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13064460#map=18/39.40837/-76.59307 |
| 2 | 2022-11-07 21:15 | ElliottPlack | 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. | |
| 3 | 2022-11-07 22:03 | DUGA ♦549 | Hmm…what about changing to pedestrian area? | |
| 12874319 by ElliottPlack @ 2012-08-27 04:08 | 1 | 2022-10-24 21:06 | ElliottPlack | The interpolation work here was pre-import of buildings. 10 years ago, holy cow! |
| 127893256 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-10-21 16:28 | 1 | 2022-10-21 23:59 | John Kastner ♦46 | `landuse=commercial` on the USDA fields feels wrong. Is it generally the case that agricultural facilities are considered commercial landuse in OSM? I may be making a hasty judgement because of the less pleasant rendering, but the tag does seems semantically wrong. |
| 2 | 2022-10-22 00:12 | ElliottPlack | 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... | |
| 111393796 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-19 03:40 | 1 | 2022-09-11 16:26 | DUGA ♦549 | What is the point of mapping this...?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9104583948#map=19/39.49489/-76.64904 |
| 2 | 2022-09-11 16:31 | ElliottPlack | It is for verification of the turn restriction. What is the point of you questioning this? | |
| 3 | 2022-09-11 16:49 | DUGA ♦549 | Why not just putting it into restriction? | |
| 125421496 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-08-26 19:56 | 1 | 2022-08-26 19:56 | ElliottPlack | meant to say adding some greenery around the APG triangle near the power plant |
| 94665257 by ElliottPlack @ 2020-11-23 22:34 | 1 | 2022-08-20 13:47 | DUGA ♦549 | Please let me know if I should delete the eruv here, some of them intersect with powerline no longer exists and this now does not make much sense. |
| 96612388 by ElliottPlack @ 2020-12-29 15:39 | 1 | 2022-07-18 02:23 | DUGA ♦549 | No such thinghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/889597052/history#map=19/39.49606/-76.64974 |
| 2 | 2022-07-18 02:28 | ElliottPlack | Hi, unmarked crossings are still crossings. You can legally cross at most places there is an intersection unless there’s a sign saying otherwise. Those are rare in this region. You might not see the crossing but it’s there for routing of the sidewalks | |
| 120763200 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-05-09 19:38 | 1 | 2022-06-03 01:22 | UrbanUnPlanner ♦8 | DOT# 529617W has been closed since 1985 -- I suspect that bogon is an issue with the underlying MDOT dataset. Also, are you proposing that we use ref= for FRA IDs and not ref:fra_crossing=? |
| 113136895 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-10-29 18:41 | 1 | 2022-06-02 18:46 | A Hall ♦53 | I'm not entirely sure, but I think this changeset dropped some border lines from the Mason-Dixon Line. There's a gap in the relation between ~Finzel, MD & Piney Grove, MD. I was not allowed to make edits (security issue?) so I was not able to add the missing pieces to the existing Maso... |
| 2 | 2022-06-02 19:07 | ElliottPlack | Thanks for the heads up! I will take a look at the relation and the gaps. It may have had a gap already but nonetheless needs some fixing. | |
| 3 | 2022-06-02 19:10 | ElliottPlack | OK, I see the gap now. https://i.imgur.com/OJqZ0fq.jpeg | |
| 4 | 2022-06-02 19:35 | ElliottPlack | All fixed here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121866028https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6927118 | |
| 36472658 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-01-09 23:07 | 1 | 2022-05-11 13:47 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Can you confirm whether these are 25 mph or 40 mph. I'm assuming 25 |
| 2 | 2022-05-14 03:41 | ElliottPlack | Its tough to say, I have moved from the area. Most roads are now 25 in Baltimore regardless of classification. Mapillary is pretty good here. | |
| 119137642 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-03-31 01:38 | 1 | 2022-04-01 13:04 | pkoby ♦110 | I would argue about this being religious landuse. I'm seeing a retirement home and a school. Though they're Catholic-run, I wouldn't understand them to be doing religious activity like I would say of a church or similar. |
| 2 | 2022-04-01 15:04 | ElliottPlack | Peter, you are right, I think this does not meet the definition of religious landuse. I did not check the wiki first. Would it be better as commercial, or something else? | |
| 115730763 by ElliottPlack @ 2022-01-03 22:29 | 1 | 2022-01-03 22:29 | ElliottPlack | also wanted to mention I fixed a lot of the geometries of the roads in Homeland. |
| 112718562 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-10-19 21:44 | 1 | 2021-12-02 17:58 | ivanbranco ♦2,698 | Hi ElliottPlack,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/908125554/historywhat's the meaning of this tags?PARK_CODE=MC-P34PARK_NAME=Northwest Branch SVU 3 |
| 2 | 2021-12-02 18:01 | ElliottPlack | Ivan, Thanks for the question. Those are machine tags left over from the source, the PD MNCPPC Data. I will discard them. | |
| 108991912 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-08-02 02:24 | 1 | 2021-10-27 23:00 | DUGA ♦549 | Great Seneca Crk does not look like that,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/969664619#map=16/39.1926/-77.2126Source: USGS |
| 2 | 2021-10-28 15:25 | ElliottPlack | Yes, rivers do change over time. The original shape was imported as a census designated place boundary, thus why I'd adjusted it in this changeset. Your revision looks fine though, just don't break the relations. | |
| 112828192 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-10-22 09:10 | 1 | 2021-10-22 14:33 | RunTrails ♦25 | Thanks, I don't get the non-park people, it has a gigantic trail running its length for many uses, a lot of boat ramps for river access, picnic areas, dozens of campgrounds. It's 90+% recreational use, a park. |
| 112527937 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-10-15 06:08 | 1 | 2021-10-15 12:31 | John Kastner ♦46 | I haven't been over that bridge for a couple weeks, but, iirc, it was replaced some time last year and has been open since then. |
| 2 | 2021-10-15 14:06 | ElliottPlack | Oh, damn. I was assuming Greenway People have better intel. If that's the case I'll just revert this one. | |
| 3 | 2021-10-15 14:06 | ElliottPlack | PG Parks still shows it closed :p | |
| 4 | 2021-10-15 14:39 | ElliottPlack | I have emailed PG parks to see if they know. | |
| 104254150 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-05-06 12:48 | 1 | 2021-09-25 13:59 | DUGA ♦549 | Would you please check this segment:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/609616568#map=19/39.68963/-79.10370 |
| 2 | 2021-09-29 00:34 | ElliottPlack | What was the issue? It looks like you've updated it all to trunk, right? According to the (still work in progress) guideline, trunk should connect two regional cities of importance when an interstate freeway is not available. In this case I would extent the Trunk designation all the way up to S... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-29 00:35 | ElliottPlack | And, if I updated it to trunk (I forget) apologies, no shade meant. I suggest you make it trunk up to Salisbury either way :) | |
| 4 | 2021-09-29 11:28 | DUGA ♦549 | It was a very short primary road. I updated to trunk in order to match all others around that area. But I cannot tell if just this short segment was wrong or everything else was wrong. | |
| 108895521 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-07-30 14:05 | 1 | 2021-07-30 14:59 | heretofore ♦25 | The boundaries go through people's houses now. |
| 2 | 2021-09-29 02:43 | ElliottPlack | Hey, if it is a legal boundary that is fine and pretty common when the boundary was added after something was already there. For the CDP boundaries they don't really matter and shouldn't really cut off homes. Ideally they'd be snapped to roads or streams. | |
| 111519150 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-22 01:58 | 1 | 2021-09-22 01:58 | ElliottPlack | Forgot to add MNCPPC as a source |
| 111219528 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-15 02:12 | 1 | 2021-09-15 02:14 | ElliottPlack | This changeset was uploaded in error. I meant to upload the changes to Hampstead separate. |
| 2 | 2021-09-15 02:16 | ElliottPlack | Here is the correct changeset comment https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111219556#map=14/39.6139/-76.8546 | |
| 111215561 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-14 21:31 | 1 | 2021-09-14 21:32 | ElliottPlack | Wrong changeset name! Should have been: deleted unused way |
| 105517807 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-05-29 03:54 | 1 | 2021-09-11 14:06 | DUGA ♦549 | Would you please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948324225/? Is it an invalid data? |
| 2 | 2021-09-14 21:31 | ElliottPlack | deleted | |
| 110769754 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-06 02:12 | 1 | 2021-09-13 15:43 | DUGA ♦549 | Please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158395844#map=19/39.69508/-79.15114 |
| 2 | 2021-09-13 23:32 | ElliottPlack | Looks like I missed the existing node because it was outside of a buffer. I’ll move the one you cited to the center and fix | |
| 3 | 2021-09-14 21:26 | ElliottPlack | fixed | |
| 110938331 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-08 20:53 | 1 | 2021-09-09 01:11 | RoadGeek_MD99 ♦41 | Hey Elliott, Did you mean to remove both the address and building tags or was that OsmAnd Maps? I see the building is for lease. Thanks and Happy Mapping, RoadGeek_MD99 |
| 2 | 2021-09-09 01:14 | ElliottPlack | Oops this was supposed to be a note. It is out of business but OsmAnd seems to have made the edit | |
| 3 | 2021-09-09 01:16 | ElliottPlack | Just reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110942674 | |
| 4 | 2021-09-09 01:17 | ElliottPlack | And downgraded thanks to ID's friendly button for that https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110942706 | |
| 110942674 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-09 01:15 | 1 | 2021-09-09 01:16 | ElliottPlack | see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110938331#map=19/39.39746/-76.56837 |
| 110009130 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-08-20 23:31 | 1 | 2021-08-26 19:21 | mueschel ♦6,570 | Hi,you added the tag "bicycle:lts=0" to many different roads. What does it mean? Is there some documentation? |
| 2 | 2021-09-02 15:46 | ElliottPlack | Hey there, sorry this comment slipped through my emails but I wanted to reply. The LTS score is a quantitative measure of the traffic stress a bicycle rider would feel.I haven't found any osm documentation yet so I've been adding the tag with the hope of proposing a standard on the wik... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-02 16:08 | mueschel ♦6,570 | Hi,thanks for the reply.So, this is yet another approach to tag how a bicyclist might feel. There are already several approaches by local communities. For some reason they all claim their own approach is incompatible with existing tagging, use it in a very small area and don't write docum... | |
| 4 | 2021-09-02 16:14 | ElliottPlack | Agree 100% and thank you for bringing this up. I've started the conversation on the OSM US Slack and will bring it up in the lists, and with those other communities. I'll poke around at some of these other options already in use as well. Perhaps I could join forces by the Minn. folks. | |
| 110563493 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-09-01 11:54 | 1 | 2021-09-02 00:47 | pkoby ♦110 | Is this actually named "Not a Track"? Or is it a local tradition? If the latter, would `loc_name=*` be more appropriate? Open to discussion, because I'm not a local. |
| 110467395 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-08-30 15:19 | 1 | 2021-08-30 17:33 | WRW88 ♦5 | S Division sections shown as a cycle track are protected separate lanes. |
| 2 | 2021-08-30 17:38 | ElliottPlack | According to the SBY GIS site, the sections along Division St are Sharrow only. Is the website wrong here? https://salisbury.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c10e82df2db74447a7e997cac0aa2f63 | |
| 3 | 2021-08-30 17:55 | WRW88 ♦5 | Divisions Street from Carroll Street to Circle Avenue is a cycle track, one lane on each side. North of Circle Avenue Division St is sharrows with dedicated crossing lanes at US 50. North of US 50 it is sharrows only. | |
| 110467699 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-08-30 15:28 | 1 | 2021-08-30 17:33 | WRW88 ♦5 | Town Sq. Phase 1 is present and open as shown. Phase 2 is currently under design and will be added when complete. |
| 110033521 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-08-21 15:54 | 1 | 2021-08-22 20:43 | bradrh ♦66 | I think it's unfortunate that you took the acronym BLM out of the name, and operator fields. It was added to operator by me, I'm local to that area, It was added to the the name by another westerner. You've stomped on the tags from locals and added fluff based on some new wiki pag... |
| 2 | 2021-08-22 20:52 | ElliottPlack | Hi there. I made the update at the request of the DWG on OSMUS slack after they reverted it from someone that’d deleted the whole thing. Thought I was doing you a favor.As for the tagging, it is a standard based on considerable discussion on slack, the mailing lists, and amongst people tha... | |
| 3 | 2021-08-22 20:55 | ElliottPlack | Read more: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Naming_conventions | |
| 4 | 2021-08-22 23:17 | bradrh ♦66 | Andy T did me a favor by reverting the deletion. I read the osm us & osm tagging list regularly. There was not considerable discussion on either of those forums. There are too many scattered OSM forums to keep up with. Sorry to be cranky, but I see too much being messed up by remote & sa... | |
| 5 | 2021-08-23 13:13 | ElliottPlack | You do sound cranky, but I get it! I have been mapping and importing protected areas on the east coast for years and am frustrated by what I call "landuse mappers" that have throwaway accounts and swoop in to untag major land reservations I've spent hours working on. I get it, serious... | |
| 6 | 2021-08-23 13:17 | ElliottPlack | Now, speaking of this edit, I think it would be fine to make the name "Bureau of Land Management - San Luis Field Office" though it is a mouthful. However, I must strongly advise against abbreviating the name. That is likely how "Tom" found this area in order to delete it. Acrony... | |
| 7 | 2021-08-23 13:26 | ZeLonewolf ♦559 | This seems a little strange to me to name BLM lands as a "field office"? Is that actually the name of the area or just the name of which office is responsible for it? | |
| 8 | 2021-08-23 14:44 | bradrh ♦66 | I agree, the name is awkward. That's what the BLM calls it. https://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=59bfb9b9406d4a409e2f510bda9e409f . Maybe 'region' or something like that make more sense. Open to suggestions | |
| 9 | 2021-08-23 15:42 | ZeLonewolf ♦559 | That arcgis link seems to divide up the state into "Administrative Unit Names", each with "Such and Such Field Office". That implies to me that this is the field office responsible for BLM lands within that area.From their web site (https://www.blm.gov/office/san-luis-valley... | |
| 10 | 2021-08-23 16:47 | stevea ♦304 | Brad, the "convoluted mess" you mention (our United States/Public Lands wiki) is a truly valiant effort on the part of many dedicated USA-based OSM volunteers to address what are a great many seriously complex issues. While it is clearly still "wet paint," it has evolved over ye... | |
| 11 | 2021-08-23 16:49 | stevea ♦304 | San Luis Valley, not Sal Luis Valley. | |
| 12 | 2021-08-23 21:45 | bradrh ♦66 | I think the local name is just BLM land. As in, I'm camped on the other side of Poncha Pass on the BLM land, or camped along CR 240 on BLM land. Is an acronym acceptable in loc_name? It isn't critical, I've modified my mkgmap scripts to handle the full spelled out name, (altho wh... | |
| 13 | 2021-08-23 22:03 | stevea ♦304 | Personally (just me, I'm only speaking for myself), I'm OK with a loc_name has an acronym in it, as "that's what the locals call it" (and who am I to argue?!)There are many "happy mediums" (I know, "media" is plural) to be struck in OSM, purely for pr... | |
| 98136504 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-01-25 17:23 | 1 | 2021-07-25 21:06 | DUGA ♦549 | Is there any better way to handle that Reddy Branch Stream Valley Unit 1?It makes the entire area a huge mess here. |
| 2 | 2021-07-26 02:05 | ElliottPlack | Probably can merge them all into one area. I imported that data almost ten years ago. I bet MNCPPC has a better naming system now. | |
| 3 | 2021-07-26 02:32 | ElliottPlack | https://mcatlas.org/parks/?find=P42&extent=-8583510.4524%2C4740197.8213%2C-8568624.3411%2C4753946.9318%2C102100 | |
| 4 | 2021-07-26 21:34 | ElliottPlack | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108646867#map=14/39.1834/-77.0549I've performed the merge. Lots of the residential and school areas now overlap the park, because I got the latest park boundaries in the process. Those should be corrected, e.g. move residential area so it doesn't... | |
| 42298129 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-09-20 12:51 | 1 | 2021-06-02 16:34 | wolfgang8741 ♦44 | Did you check if these intersected with existing basin or other shapes? See a basin https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82287955 from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82287955 uploaded 6 years prior which intersects with a pond added in this changeset. |
| 2 | 2021-06-04 18:44 | ElliottPlack | Hi Wolfgang! I did check for intersects when I was doing this work, using manually, but I may have missed some basins Phil has added due to the landuse tagging somehow. I think it is mostly good data, but if there are some areas needing clean up let me know. | |
| 98150824 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-01-26 02:48 | 1 | 2021-05-29 16:41 | DUGA ♦549 | Please take a look: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86310964/history |
| 2 | 2021-05-29 17:11 | ElliottPlack | Hey Duga, I've been working on updating the CDP boundaries from 2000 version to 2020 so I'm gradually getting rid of these older boundary lines. There might be some broken in the interim, not to worry though, they'll all be handled. | |
| 98141594 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-01-25 19:39 | 1 | 2021-04-14 03:18 | ZeLonewolf ♦559 | Bork bork: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/133525:) |
| 2 | 2021-04-14 04:25 | ElliottPlack | Hmm, what the heck happened there! | |
| 3 | 2021-04-14 05:10 | ElliottPlack | Not sure where the missing pieces went but I have it all sorted with several new and changed CDPs in that vicinity added too.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102899962 | |
| 101425270 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-03-21 04:06 | 1 | 2021-03-22 18:09 | fortchagos ♦7 | Elliot, just saw the you split the woods along Cascade creek. There is no clearing across the creek - it's covered by woods with trees right on the stream bank. It seems overboard to go through all that effort when there is no clearing. Same thing with Norris Lane - it's all covered by w... |
| 2 | 2021-03-23 13:41 | ElliottPlack | Thank you! I would normally just leave the woods covering the creek and trail, as you said, but I'm trying to prevent the woods from appearing "under" the green park polygons on the main map. This is mapping for the renderer in its truest form, which I normally avoid. However, the par... | |
| 3 | 2021-03-24 01:56 | fortchagos ♦7 | See my latest woods edits for two solutions. The first, I removed the woods ways next to Cascade Creek and made the creek an outer member of the woods multipolygons on either side. In the second, I split another section of woods into two by simply breaking the ways and jumping across the woods wit... | |
| 4 | 2021-03-24 02:25 | ElliottPlack | Thanks for the help. Ideally I think we'd cover the full park with its landuse/landcover so that the underlying "green" area doesn't show. But if you pan west, I just made a bunch of area changes based on Ranger Joe's new plan so now areas like Davis overlap the larger tree ... | |
| 5 | 2021-03-24 02:28 | ElliottPlack | My question to you is what are your thoughts on changing the PVSP park areas from leisure=park to leisure=nature reserve. Fundamentally the only different between PVSP and a big wildlife management area like Patuxent or Soldier's Delight is just the name. They all have trails and allow recreati... | |
| 6 | 2021-03-24 03:14 | fortchagos ♦7 | Splitting the tree area into many small manageable areas (adjacent multipolygons) is exactly what you want to do to make life easier. There are some pretty complex multipolygons that are hard to manage here. Nature preserve seems more appropriate. | |
| 40772735 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-07-16 04:30 | 1 | 2021-02-28 09:28 | fiscal ♦23 | IMHO the Bliss Hill may no be linked with the Wikidata ID of the famous wallpaper. |
| 2 | 2021-03-02 14:12 | ElliottPlack | This is definitely more of a 'for fun' edit. The wikidata does have a coordinate location so I think that qualifies, right? | |
| 21325836 by ElliottPlack @ 2014-03-26 14:33 | 1 | 2021-02-14 15:00 | DUGA ♦549 | Would you please take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269213914. It is a mysterious line now. |
| 2 | 2021-02-15 13:43 | ElliottPlack | Deleted this one. It is generally safe to remove these unused lines so long as all shared nodes are kept. | |
| 39382873 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-05-17 17:39 | 1 | 2021-02-14 14:51 | DUGA ♦549 | Would you please take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/83129943.It is a mysterious line now. |
| 2 | 2021-02-15 13:39 | ElliottPlack | Thanks, I took care of it by removing the unused line. | |
| 99009043 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-02-10 03:41 | 1 | 2021-02-11 17:47 | user_5359 ♦19,390 | Hello! I assume the combinationaccess=noaccess:wikidata=Q105416118should notice acmes only for the Friends of Patapsco Valley State Park.This new access:wikidata doesn't replace the access=no (also for the owner).The access value could be permissive or private (if Q105416118 is the ow... |
| 2 | 2021-02-11 19:59 | ElliottPlack | Hey there. I am experimenting a bit with that access:wikidata tag. The idea was to essentially cite that the trail was indeed closed per that wikidata organization. Probably a bit too much of an abstraction though. I didn't add operator:wikidata because the trail is informal and was built illeg... | |
| 3 | 2021-02-11 20:03 | ElliottPlack | Here's a photo of the signs indicating the closure, if you're interested, taken by me yesterday. https://i.imgur.com/jkYKdlA.jpg | |
| 98391670 by ElliottPlack @ 2021-01-29 22:07 | 1 | 2021-01-29 22:12 | ElliottPlack | Here is the changeset where I split up the areas into sub-units, five years ago: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38457685#map=11/39.2766/-76.8279At the time, the boundary=protected_area tagging was still relatively new. Now that it is well formed, it makes more sense to tag the overall b... |
| 38457685 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-04-10 18:25 | 1 | 2021-01-29 22:10 | ElliottPlack | After five years and many edits, I've reunited the park under one protected area. The individual sections are still preserved, but each one does not have the protected area tags because they would be duplicative. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12250276#map=12/39.2774/-76.8204 |
| 95190850 by ElliottPlack @ 2020-12-03 04:23 | 1 | 2020-12-30 14:02 | Betanyahoo ♦18 | Is this a landuse – or even worse – zoning import? |
| 2 | 2020-12-30 14:08 | ElliottPlack | 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 ... | |
| 93944495 by ElliottPlack @ 2020-11-11 17:53 | 1 | 2020-11-21 18:13 | Joseph E ♦137 | I believe Indian River bay should be included in the area outside of the natural=coastline, though it’s also fine to tag it as a natural=water area too, it is a marginal part of the sea with tides and partially salty water. |
| 94093155 by ElliottPlack @ 2020-11-14 02:23 | 1 | 2020-11-17 08:26 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | This change breaks the whole world map! The Chesapeake Bay is a bay but it is still part of the sea, not an inland water area. The bay is clearly tidal, clearly part of the sea, so the natural=coastline tags have to go around it. On many maps this huge area will now not be visible as water any more,... |
| 2 | 2020-11-17 14:17 | ElliottPlack | Jochen, that sounds like an issue with the apps that consume OSM, not the data itself. There are other, larger inland water bodies that are tagged this way, like Lake Michigan, which is 3x as big as the bay. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1205149I had removed much of the Chesapeake Bay&#... | |
| 3 | 2020-11-17 14:38 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | Lake Michigan is an actual lake, not part of the sea, so it doesn't apply here.You can not just change what a tag is supposed to mean that has been around for years. Such changes break OSM. You just have to look at a map like the cycle map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=4/43.13/-94.83&... | |
| 4 | 2020-11-17 14:43 | Sparks ♦38 | The Chesapeake Bay is not part of "the sea", it is a defined area of water that is specifically delineated from an ocean. If it is not rendered appropriately, then the renderer should be fixed. Under your definition, because it is tidal, many rivers should be considered seas which isn�... | |
| 5 | 2020-11-17 15:35 | woodpeck ♦2,430 | Who are the people who have decided on this "collaborative project" - is it just the two of you, or does this have the support of the US community? Has it been discussed anywhere that has a publicly accessible archive (i.e. specifically *not* Slack)? | |
| 6 | 2020-11-17 16:33 | ElliottPlack | Some of these discussions have taken place on changesets, but mostly in the OSMUS Slack, which I thought was a fine place to have such conversations.The reason we considered this is because new users kept breaking the coastline by drawing it on arbitrary lines or one ways already covered by wate... | |
| 7 | 2020-11-17 16:44 | Sparks ♦38 | Back to the point of the matter, the Chesapeake Bay is an inland waterway and not a sea like an ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Caribbean Sea. It is vastly smaller and surrounded by land. | |
| 8 | 2020-11-17 16:56 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | Sorry, Sparks, but it doesn't matter for OSM what something "is". All that matters is that we agree on tagging, so that everybody can use the data consistently. And the agreed definition on where natural=coastline is tagged is in the wiki and has been used for a long time. You can not... | |
| 9 | 2020-11-17 16:59 | Sparks ♦38 | I'm not changing the definition of anything. I'm defining the "thing" that I am mapping. | |
| 10 | 2020-11-17 19:41 | Minh Nguyen ♦567 | Is it possible to have it both ways? I realize it isn’t an exactly analogous situation, but San Francisco Bay appears to be mapped as both a bay and as a series of coastlines, and it seems to have been that way for a long time without breaking renderers and other data consumers:https://www... | |
| 11 | 2020-11-17 19:54 | ElliottPlack | 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... | |
| 12 | 2020-11-17 20:50 | Sparks ♦38 | Looking at an application that uses OSM data, the SF Bay is identified as North Pacific Ocean because it is improperly mapped using coastline and only, what I suspect, has a node dropped in the middle of the area, saying that it is the Bay. That's the problem with mapping these inland waters l... | |
| 13 | 2020-11-17 20:52 | Minh Nguyen ♦567 | Which application did you check? The San Francisco Bay Area relation at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9451753 includes all the coastline ways as members, so it forms a polygon. If the application represents it as a point, it’s probably calculating the centroid automatically. | |
| 14 | 2020-11-17 20:55 | Sparks ♦38 | Ahh, I see the relation, now. However, the use of coastline is still bringing in the ocean as that is what coastline is for, IMO.I'm looking at YAAC which has the side effect of pulling way identifiers from OSM data and displaying them to the user. | |
| 15 | 2020-11-17 20:55 | Minh Nguyen ♦567 | (Correction: the San Francisco Bay relation, 9451753, includes ways redundant to the coastline ways, but not the coastline ways themselves. I’m unsure about the history behind that approach, but it does seem to result in a correct representation of the bay.) | |
| 16 | 2020-11-17 22:10 | ElliottPlack | 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) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/591823494#map=14/37.8278/-75.4774 | |
| 17 | 2020-11-17 22:15 | Minh Nguyen ♦567 | The coastline ways shouldn’t be named. The name on way 591823494 seems to be an error left over from when https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57065106 introduced https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8099409 . | |
| 18 | 2020-11-18 09:35 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | I personally don't have an opinion on any tagging here except that natural=coastline should be where it used to be. If you want other tagging for naming the Bay that's fine with me. | |
| 19 | 2020-11-18 13:28 | imagico ♦70 | For reference: Previous discussion on the matter can be found onhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44837047https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-January/thread.html#15819For several years now this region has required special processing for anyone who wants to deriv... | |
| 20 | 2020-11-19 04:24 | ElliottPlack | 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.htmlI am reviewing that, and the comments here--I haven't forgotten about this. | |
| 21 | 2020-11-21 10:38 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | The way the natural=coastline tags have been understood for the last >10 years clearly say that the coastlines tags should go around the bay. Some of the details of the discussion on the tagging mailing list do not matter for the situation here. Are you going to revert this now? | |
| 22 | 2020-11-21 15:49 | Sparks ♦38 | No. I disagree with your interpretation of coastline and can only say that it's time to fix this interpretation that you've been propagating for the last ten years. Legally, scientifically, and locally, the Bay is neither ocean nor sea. There are better ways of tagging this and that... | |
| 23 | 2020-11-21 16:06 | Jochen Topf ♦29 | You are breaking >10 years worth of software, style sheets, maps, etc. Everybody who has dependet on this definition. This is not something you can change. | |
| 24 | 2020-11-21 16:23 | woodpeck ♦2,430 | ElliotPlack, regarding the question of Slack: Slack is a private communications medium with no public archive that can be viewed by other members of the community who are not signed up to Slack. Of course mappers may use any form of private communication but if the result is a grand plan like this, ... | |
| 25 | 2020-11-21 16:31 | muralito ♦2,022 | There are users who use the coastline for rendering (although they do not have the nobility to recognize it) and they care less that the data is used to determine what is ocean and what is not, as shown by the various examples of the coastline mapped tens of kilometers within England or Germany.... | |
| 26 | 2020-11-21 16:33 | muralito ♦2,022 | The coastline sould be mapped where it should , not where it use to be, if the software is broken fix the software, but the data sould be right. | |
| 44223837 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-12-07 01:12 | 1 | 2020-07-01 11:42 | woodpeck ♦2,430 | Hi, the DWG has received a complaint saying that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458181471 was on private ground, and tons of park visitors were parking there in Brookview Rd to access the park which annoys residents. Do you have information to the contrary, or is it possible/likely that they are ... |
| 2 | 2020-07-01 11:53 | ElliottPlack | Hi! That is a ridiculous allegation but not surprising due to a cultural issue people have around here with public parking on public rights of way. The public road Brookview Road is on a parcel owned by the local government here, Baltimore County. That parcel directly abuts there Park property with ... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-01 12:50 | woodpeck ♦2,430 | Can we perhaps reach out to the county GIS department or so to have this cleared up? Property owner is adamant that any way from the street into the park would cross their private land - should be a question that can easily be settled by asking the right people. Can you help me to identify who "... | |
| 4 | 2020-07-01 13:19 | ElliottPlack | Sure, I am happy to help! I used to work for said GIS department so I know a few people. I'm actually taking a closer look at this on JOSM using the local parcel data and lidar overlays. When justified, I'm sensitive to private property rights too. On closer inspection I can see how someon... | |
| 5 | 2020-07-02 04:01 | ElliottPlack | Update: I decided not to edit the map here just yet before we finish the discussion here. I did talk to the local GIS office but they point out that parcel data is only a representation and that a surveyor needs to be called in to very the exact positions of boundaries. Since OSM doesn't claim ... | |
| 6 | 2020-07-02 04:02 | ElliottPlack | Typo: ..." a surveyor needs to be called in to verify the exact position of boundaries"... | |
| 7 | 2020-07-02 12:38 | ElliottPlack | Alright, this is resolved. I've updated the geometry of the connector to show how it goes on private property and marked it as private. Also added some details to the map around the area. Check it out: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458181471#map=18/39.41570/-76.55559 | |
| 84785297 by ElliottPlack @ 2020-05-06 21:30 | 1 | 2020-05-06 21:33 | ElliottPlack | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78746676 for inspiration |
| 2 | 2020-05-06 22:04 | AT0MCHILD ♦1 | I traced the tunnels to the best of my memory by literally walking through them. I’m new at adding to the open street maps, so thanks for the help with the data. | |
| 75204687 by ElliottPlack @ 2019-10-02 22:47 | 1 | 2019-12-17 12:06 | RoadGeek_MD99 ♦41 | Re-opened Triadelphia Road bridge westbound over MD 32 only per survey (https://openstreetcam.org/details/2064838/1527/track-info) and https://twitter.com/MDSHA/status/1143149838797803523; https://www.roads.maryland.gov/pages/release.aspx?newsId=3480 |
| 65357047 by ElliottPlack @ 2018-12-10 21:27 | 1 | 2018-12-10 21:33 | ElliottPlack | I forgot to mention that I put the Magnolia town boundary into a relation in this changeset |
| 50947147 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-08-08 15:25 | 1 | 2017-08-14 11:35 | mueschel ♦6,570 | Hi,could you explain the meaning of 'eruv' on this way?http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/513968801Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 14:56 | ElliottPlack | Jan,Sure, an eruv is a physical object that serves as a symbolic boundary in the Jewish Orthodox faith. Read more:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EruvThere isn't a great tag for this yet on OSM, so I added this under the premise of the "Any tags you like" principle (http://wiki.... | |
| 3 | 2017-08-14 15:13 | mueschel ♦6,570 | Alright, I haven't seen this before.I see one potential problem with the tagging: A barrier=* implies an access restriction, by default access=no. So, if anybody by mistake adds a common node with any highway, routing engines might think traffic is blocked. I don't think we have a prop... | |
| 4 | 2017-08-15 02:48 | ElliottPlack | Jan: I'm glad that you found this and commented. I think your idea is superb. I was trying to decide if I should use an existing key like barrier but you make a good point that it could be interpreted by a routing engine as a generic barrier. Better to start something totally fresh.What do ... | |
| 5 | 2017-08-15 18:42 | mueschel ♦6,570 | ':' versus '_' - there is no functional difference between the two. Usually, ':' is used for subkeys, e.g. a key that further describes the main key, e.g. 'capacity' and the more specific 'capacity:disabled'. The underscore is more used like a replac... | |
| 6 | 2018-07-24 13:20 | ElliottPlack | Thinking back on this, what do you think about having eruv=rope, eruv=wire, versus eruv=yes paired with eruv:type=rope or wire. Tags like barrier and highway have their 'type' as the tag name. | |
| 7 | 2018-07-25 06:58 | mueschel ♦6,570 | Hi Elliott, this should be fine too. You can still add tags like "eruv:something = this" later on if you feel a need to add more details. | |
| 51178216 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-08-16 14:58 | 1 | 2017-08-19 06:47 | Al Barrentine ♦1 | 👍 |
| 50190691 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-07-11 02:42 | 1 | 2017-07-11 11:20 | TJVP ♦5 | hi Elliott! thanks for helping-- as you can see, I'm still getting used to editing here, and I appreciate your help.As for Lutherville Timonium and Mays Chapel-- the reason mays chapel has such a big population is because it's just all residential. It's not a "town" as d... |
| 2 | 2017-07-11 22:34 | ElliottPlack | TJ, that is a great point, and I'm glad you made it. I am happy to help out. Place classification is a contentious thing in the community so I do apologize if it seems harsh. Often times we'll see edits where someone will reclassify every town or do some mechanical edits. In the past, we h... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-11 22:44 | TJVP ♦5 | I would love to. I "technically" live in MC but I always say Lutherville or Lutherville-Timonium since many sites (including the USPS) don't recognize Mays Chapel as the correct city for me, since it's so small.I definitely agree population alone should not be the deciding fa... | |
| 4 | 2017-07-11 22:45 | TJVP ♦5 | Example, from USPS (a list of all valid cities in 21093):Default City Name in ZIP Code™ 21093Please use the default city whenever possible.LUTHERVILLE TIMONIUM MDOther city names recognized for addresses in 21093LUTHERVILLE MDLUTHVLE TIMON MDTIMONIUM MD | |
| 5 | 2017-07-11 23:03 | ElliottPlack | This situation is pretty unique to Baltimore County and that the mapping community, unfortunately, does not have a great answer for. Baltimore County is somewhat unique in the US in that there are no incorporated towns in it. Thus, things like Towson and Timonium don't have any official existen... | |
| 6 | 2017-07-11 23:15 | TJVP ♦5 | in my mind, lutherville includes ridgley and foxtail, so i would be inclined to make it a town, however if you feel it should be a village, i'd be ok with that.perhaps to make it easier, we should go by USPS instead of the census, being that many people as you said identify based on USPS. I... | |
| 7 | 2017-07-11 23:48 | ElliottPlack | That sounds about right about the town/village issue, especially considering the shops along York Road in lutherville go back decades. So both L/T as town then?I think that the USPS areas are more identifiable. The only issue is that some people do think of Mays Chapel as a place. I know folks tha... | |
| 8 | 2017-07-11 23:55 | TJVP ♦5 | I was just going to say the only part I would consider mays chapel is that grauls area.I think for this it kind of just has to go by real world experience. sure "official boundaries" are what the census uses but when it comes down to it, I feel like the maps should represent cities and... | |
| 9 | 2017-07-12 00:58 | ElliottPlack | Awesome, there's a link to join on the Maryland wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maryland | |
| 50215161 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-07-11 23:34 | 1 | 2017-07-11 23:39 | TJVP ♦5 | Thanks-- I'll add the shops tonight. I would love to talk via Slack (as it's easier) about town names, as I agree in Baltimore County there's no black and white answer. |
| 49092590 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-05-30 05:47 | 1 | 2017-05-31 21:49 | samely ♦201 | Hi! Thanks for your contribution to OSM. I saw you added some items, which have just area tag, can you complete the tags? See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass |
| 45117814 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-01-12 21:40 | 1 | 2017-01-12 21:43 | ElliottPlack | forgot to mention in changeset: reviewed road types around the Tudor farms site and changes some to track / service depending on their appearance |
| 2 | 2017-01-15 21:01 | pyram ♦504 | I saw that you split the natural ways to merge with boundarys. Thats no error, but very ugly to work with such complex data. So I will stop mapping in Blackwater.Greetings pyram | |
| 45110126 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-01-12 17:09 | 1 | 2017-01-12 21:29 | pyram ♦504 | Hallo ElliottPlack,excuse me for asking, but I think this (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6875247#map=14/38.4456/-75.9702) is never a giant camp site. It seems to be a wetland. Maybe a Copy/Paste-Error? |
| 2 | 2017-01-12 21:33 | ElliottPlack | Hey Pyram, it is covered by a lot of wetlands, but the land is owned by a massive christian youth camping organization: https://tudorfarms.younglife.org/Pages/default.aspx | |
| 3 | 2017-01-12 21:33 | ElliottPlack | I only learned of it when trying to figure out what those crazy triangles are for | |
| 44837047 by ElliottPlack @ 2017-01-02 05:26 | 1 | 2017-01-09 16:38 | imagico ♦70 | Hello Elliott,please be aware that such large movement of the coastline interrupts coastline processing for the main map on osm.org. It would be advisable to perform such changes in a single edit after discussion in the local community.To also consider here:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w... |
| 2 | 2017-01-09 20:23 | ElliottPlack | Hi Imagico, thanks for the message. Despite the somewhat open-ended sounding changeset comment, I do believe these edits were faithful to the coastline continuity rules but let me know if I made an error. I have been doing the coastline work along the bay in manageable chunks. Looking at z5, I didn&... | |
| 3 | 2017-01-09 21:05 | imagico ♦70 | My main reason for messaging you here is to let you know that this size of change affects the coastline processing and you plan future changes accordingly.Independent of that I cannot really recognize the idea behind the current position of the coastline, i.e. why it is there and not further ups... | |
| 43016223 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-10-19 18:59 | 1 | 2016-11-05 12:33 | Richard ♦220 | Looks great! Should this be network=rcn instead? I think (but might be wrong) it's only the USBRS routes that get network=ncn - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System |
| 2 | 2016-11-05 13:18 | ElliottPlack | Richard, thanks for the comment. I agree, I'm not sure why I made it national. It should've been regional. Here's a few photos of the signage along it https://goo.gl/photos/qKXvhJe31dtNFa6U7 | |
| 3 | 2016-11-05 19:39 | ElliottPlack | All set http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43428960 | |
| 40662351 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-07-11 18:56 | 1 | 2016-09-25 03:43 | maxerickson ♦234 | The VA (The Department of Veterans Affairs since 1989, no longer the Veterans Administration) is separate from the DoD and cabinet level. Based on that, is the military landuse appropriate? |
| 2 | 2016-09-25 20:28 | ElliottPlack | Max, that is a great point. I think the area was already miltiary, so I left it that way. The facility is actually closed now, so even a hospital tag is not really appropriate. The roads in there are all private access, so I suppose we could just change the access restrictions to private, and then r... | |
| 3 | 2016-09-27 17:28 | maxerickson ♦234 | Yeah, I came across the site reviewing hospitals with no emergency tag and removed the amenity tag from the node after checking a bit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/358244014I think brownfield makes a lot more sense than military. | |
| 41215659 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-08-03 14:15 | 1 | 2016-08-03 14:46 | ElliottPlack | Source should have been "Bing" |
| 37526627 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-02-29 17:50 | 1 | 2016-02-29 19:05 | Alan ♦134 | 🚩👍 |
| 36495508 by ElliottPlack @ 2016-01-11 04:04 | 1 | 2016-01-11 15:16 | ElliottPlack | Inadvertent changeset comment. Should have been something about correcting alignment and turn restrictions |
| 35472550 by ElliottPlack @ 2015-11-20 22:00 | 1 | 2015-11-24 21:46 | neuhausr ♦331 | Hi, I think the tag for fitness places is coalescing around leisure=fitness_centre (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gym_/_Fitness_centre) |
| 2 | 2015-11-25 13:48 | ElliottPlack | I thought that looked odd in the app. I'll change it! | |
| 35473397 by ElliottPlack @ 2015-11-20 22:23 | 1 | 2015-11-24 21:51 | neuhausr ♦331 | shop=shopping_centre is rarely used, probably because it's not really clear what it means (sparse wiki page) and therefore what information it adds beyond the landuse=retail tag. thoughts? |
| 2 | 2015-11-25 13:47 | ElliottPlack | Thanks for the comment! I think you're right. This was a suggestion in that Pushpin app while I was surveying some stores here. I can remove this tag. | |
| 27364158 by ElliottPlack @ 2014-12-09 19:49 | 1 | 2014-12-12 02:20 | 4rch ♦138 | boundary area overlaps here. does this area belong to Baltimore or Carroll County? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.59400&mlon=-76.83358#map=18/39.59400/-76.83358 furthermore the boundaries of Caroll County and Baltimore County got damaged due to this changeset. |
| 2 | 2014-12-12 02:22 | 4rch ♦138 | I've tried to repair the boundary due to http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27413034 I hope that's right | |
| 3 | 2014-12-12 15:19 | ElliottPlack | @4rch: sorry to break the boundary! Basically that little triangle is a part of Hampstead that is inside of Baltimore County. I guess I really shouldn't have made it an enclave in the county relation because it is still in Baltimore County. | |
| 4 | 2014-12-12 15:26 | ElliottPlack | Alright, I fixed the boundaries in JOSM making them nice and connected, and removed the unnecessary bits. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27424053 |