Thanks for adding this to the map. It came in handy for me today!

I noticed in this changeset that you added some POIs. I checked some street-level imagery, and it looks like a lot of the buildings you added POIs in are not exclusively filled by those businesses. Notably, you changed the Dovecote Cafe from a node to the whole building. Many of these old rowhouses only have a business on the ground floor and apartments above. Unless I'm positive that the whole building is used as a business, I prefer to map POIs as points. Thoughts?

Should be good now. Thanks for catching it.

Hello,
I saw your change to the paths here. I don't disagree with the change to footway, but "footway=sidewalk" is a very specific designation for footways bordering streets (osm.wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way) that can be used for specific routing or rendering.
-- P

Don't get me wrong, I think the NSI is great, and I've contributed myself. "Faulty" is probably the wrong word. Perhaps I misunderstood something down the line, but as you are supposed to map what's on the ground, I figured that if e.g. "Long & Foster" is not identical to what's actually on the front of the building, it's not wrong to change (or keep) the name to what it says when you're standing in front of it. Another example is that branches of businesses might say on their sign the local branch name (say, "XYZ Business - Location Name Branch"). I think this is useful information to add.

That said, I guess it's not wrong per se to change the name to a consistent version, but I also think that can be maintained with the 'brand' tag. I can understand both arguments. I don't think anyone will fail to find a business because of a slight naming difference in either direction.

Hey Sparks,

I see you have a lot of experience, but I just want to mention that fixing iD warnings without local survey can cause some issues. Notably, adding information to businesses using the Name Suggestion Index is often faulty because it replaces the locally accurate name with a default generic. Often, a local POI will have a different or extended name on the shopfront. For instance, Long & Foster (=estate_agent) is locally Long & Foster Realtors.

Also, I just checked a few of the "shop=boutique" to "=clothes" changes, and that seems correct, but frequently shops are named "* Boutique" and aren't clothes stores.

Just some thoughts. Thanks!
--P

Thanks for the link! That's pretty clear. While the sign states "(and respectful allies)", it really doesn't seem to push that idea. It does seem like =only is right.

I don't think it contradicts it, but I can see that the statements could be interpreted in different ways. I reworded some of the value descriptions on the wiki to try to clear up some ambiguity.

In countries with anti-discrimination legislation, I don't think it's possible to tag "lgbtq=unwelcome" because that is by definition unverifiable—for example, a shop cannot legally put up signs that deny entry, so another mapper could not check on it. And where it is legal to discriminate, I think "unwelcome" = "no".

I suppose that there are probably cases where places *have* put up signs saying such things even in countries where that is illegal, and as such they should be tagged "lgbtq=no". But then there are bigger issues...

If the signage states that allies are welcome, should the lgbtq tag =primary? With =only, I would expect that any non-LGBTQ+ individuals would be denied entry.

I found this POI when looking at lgbtq tags. It looks like the undocumented tag "lgbt_friendly" was replaced with the documented "lgbtq". However, the value "=no" means that LGBTQ+ people are denied entry (lgbtq=*). I believe that such discrimination is illegal in the UK, so this tag would be incorrect. As the wiki states, it is unverifiable to tag "unfriendly" locations.

I just noticed that you tagged Winthrop House as tourism=apartment. Is that the correct tagging for this (a "holiday flat") or should it be building=apartment?

This is one of those things that are vague. I used to map points inside building polygons, but I tend to map the nodes where their entrances are. There's no right answer. However, another way to suppress that opinion-based unnecessary iD warning is to add "entrance=*" to the node (as long as it's accurately placed).

Any chance we can see a bit more detail/variety in your changeset comments? I'm noticing a lot more than cosmetic changes in some of your edits. Thanks!

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.

Sure! I think the reason I haven't tagged some is that it's hard to tell from satellite imagery if a crossing has traffic signals or not. Ideally, `crossing=marked` would not be incorrectly applied if there are signals, because that wouldn't be easy to catch down the road.

I would NOT remove the zoo from the park, simply because every mention I've come across describes the zoo as an element of the park (e.g. https://bcrp.baltimorecity.gov/parks/druid-hill). Also, the park is always described as 745 acres, but when I select all parts in JOSM, it's measuring out to 607. That's pretty far off, but removing the zoos 125 acres would really throw off that number.

So you think the multipolygon is fine? I did make minor adjustments to geometry to refine to imagery. But you're right that Greenspring is weird. It does feel different, though.

And yeah, parcel outlines vs actual landuse is silly and confusing, as bureaucratic data tend to be.

I guess that's personal preference. In my mind, Druid Park Lake Drive (for instance) would not be viewed by most people as "park", so I would exempt it. I suppose there's nothing wrong with joining all the bits together, but to me that doesn't reflect what's "on the ground".

Personally, I like to map landuse block-by-block, too, so I suppose I'm much more fine-grained in some of my mapping.

That was in there previously, yes, presumably by you.

No worries about Montebello. I went out there and have seen what it's about. It's weird but makes sense as its mapped.

As for the slipways, I think the two short ones can be tagged as cycleways, but I checked out the longer one south of the Dell, and it's actually open to cars for parking (BMA staff, I think). I retagged it as a parking aisle, though just highway=service could work too. The little bit at the end connecting 29th and the slipway I've left as a cycleway.