Hi Eric,

I finished mapping in Austin four months ago, as you might have seen by the age of the changeset. I changed my mapping practice after your first comment (Oct 3). In discussion in changeset/126552073 and changeset/126548350, I mentioned that you could point out if you found more changesets with issue, as I'm not working back through all my changesets to find them.

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 (historic=monument). Would perhaps historic=boundary_stone be more accurate?

Whoops! I'm using a reference dataset of cycle infrastructure (not an import), and I left behind some nodes because my JOSM filters hid them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll clean them up.

I'm curious what the source is for these neighborhood names. I haven't heard many of these, and can't find a resource online.

Thanks for catching this. It's a typo (meant to be `foot=`). Fixed.

I've reverted the ones you haven't already fixed in this changeset. Please let me know if you come across more.

No worries! Please let me know if you come across any other issues I might have introduced.

My tagging techniques are evolving throughout this project I'm working on. I have no longer intentionally been retagging cycleways that already have foot tags for shared-use paths, but some around here got changed by accident. I will review this changeset and revert those changes.

My tagging techniques are evolving throughout this project. I have no longer been retagging cycleways with foot tags for shared-use paths, but some in Austin clearly got caught up. I will review this changeset and revert those unnecessary changes.

Hey, welcome to OSM! I saw that you've made a bunch of good changes around JHU, and no real notes. Everything looks good. I see that you're using the MD Latest Imagery for editing, which is the one I'd recommend. On this changeset, though, I'd point out that the imagery is a few years old (older than Nov 2020 based on Street View), and the sidewalk/grass boundary has changed, so the addition you made actually no longer exists... Bing and Maxar imageries tend to be more up-to-date, but are inaccurate in offset.

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?