No problem. I'm probably done for the day, but I'm basically just adding woods and connecting them together.

https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/467

I did refresh and resolve conflicts with your changes.

Not sure how those got on there, but I'll keep an eye out in the future. Can't tell if they were in the original source data or what, but given that it was one session of editing, it's probably my mistake.

I based tags for cycling on Austin's dataset of bike infrastructure. Any trails denoted as cycling-allowed I tagged as bicycle=designated. However, on-the-ground is better than armchair, so feel free to adjust as necessary.

Is the Canyon Creek Nature Trail actually access=private, though? That would suggest that no member of the public could use it, and a web search (and the city database) would suggest otherwise.

Mistagging, whoops! I was tagging my reference dataset with that tag to keep track of what I had checked, but must have tagged the wrong layer. Fixed it.

Thanks! I've been trying to catch all of those. I'll make sure to run a full validation on everything moving forward.

I've noticed that you've broken a few relations for cycle routes and left a lot of disconnected sidewalks and crossings. Please be careful when you map new infrastructure that you don't break what's already there.

Perhaps you're counting parking lanes as lanes? But the parking on the side of the road just takes up a lane out of the 4. So I don't think the lanes:conditional tags are necessary as long as there is the parking:conditional tag.

Hey, I just noticed some tags on way/1066878459 from this changeset that confuse the heck out of me. The lanes:conditional and lanes:forward/backward:conditional tags, do they really mean that between 7-10am there are 6 lanes? How? There are only marking for 4 lanes. I see that the no_stopping restriction is for the same time, but wouldn't that just mean that the right lane has no parking, so opening up from 1 lane to 2 in each direction?

I've gone through all cycleway= to path= that I last touched within Austin and reverted them. Let me know if there's anything I missed.

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.