Thanks for the catch! Those are from the reference I'm using for bike infrastructure. I must have accidentally copied some of those lines into the database. Removing them now.

I came across this by accident, and I'm curious about it. I don't really see the need for sidewalk areas instead of (or in addition to) footway lines. Is this related to the micromapping you were trying out for detailed roadway geometry a few months ago?

I also noticed that a lot of these ways could be simplified a lot (extraneous nodes on straight lines) or joined together, which would be pretty simple in JOSM.

This and some other features should probably have some or all of their names as other tags. In this case, name=Social Trail, access=no, rather than including (closed) in the name. The name tag is specifically for the on-the-ground name, not descriptions.

I was going to comment on this as well. I'm sure that the prison is the owner of the land that is now tagged as a prison, but I don't believe that the majority of the land fits the definition of a prison, especially the giant bit on the mountain (I've been in that area without knowing it was owned by the prison). My opinion is that the land should be tagged as operated by SCI Rockview, and the actual walled areas as prisons.

Great input. I agree that official or suggested designations don't always reflect real-world facts. I know some states have guidelines that state routes tend to be higher classification, which would make Saint Paul primary for its whole length, whereas Calvert is MD 25 only to North Avenue. I would say this is an accurate reflection of on-the-ground usage, but it's really tough.

For now I'm making Calvert secondary down to Mt Royal, Saint Paul secondary between 25th and Mt Royal (could be primary to make it continuous), and primary for both south of Mt Royal.

Thanks for the detail. I never touched it because it's a terrifying mess... Also, people can be pretty uppity about classification and I still see myself as a recent transplant.

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=1758bc7d89c34f3bb46fb3c43e6a8d8c has some classifications, but I disagree with a lot of them too (Howard I think is primary, not Minor Arterial compared to Saint Paul's Principal Arterial).

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your classifications of these roads, but I think this might need to have some discussion and consensus. For instance, I would say St Paul and Calvert are secondary at least for their whole stretch. There are also a few bits that you seem to have missed in reclassifying on Calvert regardless.

Okay wow! Thanks for all the information. I was aware of the German project, and had a vague sense of seeing some of their mapping techniques, but didn't put them together.

I'm intrigued by some of your micromapping, but looking into it on the Wiki, I can't find some references to a few things you've added. First off, I see you've added traffic signals for all possible lights. I don't know that I agree with the pedestrian ones, but that might be a rendering issue, not a tagging one. Otherwise, the ones on the edge of the highway=junction are a bit strange to me. They wouldn't affect any routing, and they are also redundant to the one in the middle of the intersection (which does route). The highway=junction itself is interesting, but am I right in thinking that it's more concept than usable still?

Added more wood around them to make them less awkward.

My thought here was that adding the information to the NF blocks at least bounded the disconnected blocks. So for these bits it shows what the land over is of the NF. Obviously it is an incomplete picture, but the ideal path forward would be connecting the blocks rather than deleting the ones that exist. It's always best to not delete information if it's accurate, and instead improve upon it.

Also, just because it's not useful to you does not mean it's not useful to someone else. There are many people in OSM with some pretty niche interests. It's a risky game to play to delete contributions just because you're not a fan.

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.

I didn't see any signage at the gate against entry for peds. It does say bicyclists should dismount (which is silly if cars can drive...). I figured motor_vehicle=private is incorrect if customers are allowed, so I guess that ought to be =destination or =customers.

Also, the website for the museum says no one should wander the grounds without paying for entry, but that's not clear from the street.

I noticed you removed the maxweight tag. Could you instead change the tag to the correct number if you have local knowledge or another source? I suppose that it should be "0.75 st" for US short tons? Thanks!

I suppose that would work. I haven't been up here in awhile, so I can't recall if there are every cars parked on the side of the road. I've seen roads with great "shoulders" that were also for parking, and thus semi-unusable for cycling safely.

Looks like you dragged Jerry's Automotive south. Appears to be an accident?

Haha thanks Mapbox!

Good call. Images here: https://imgur.com/a/vR7j9hK

I understand that "oneway=no" isn't wrong, but is it necessary?

Is the Seton Court outline supposed to be tagged as building=university? I see it also has layer=-1. I'm not too familiar with the area, but I don't think there's a building under all this?