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.

I mean, I'm not opposed to tagging it as a cycleway as that is its current function, it just seems awkward. Same thing with Lake Montebello, and how its outer road is tagged as a cycleway right now: it's a little strange, but it's probably the best tagging scheme at the moment.

I'm not sure about that. There really isn't any indication that it is accessible at all, by bikes or anything. Also, going from east to west on the northern one is not really safe at speed because of the angle of the plastic bollards on the west end. So it's not really a cycleway, it's just an old bit of road that bikes can use...

Kind of, but more like the upcoming move is sapping my mental energy. Don't worry, I'll be back into it at some point.

Public art is one of my side passions from this past year. I'll definitely work on this at some point.

Hello,

I see you're adding thousands of buildings, and it looks like you're importing from the Microsoft dataset. These outlines are very poor and innaccurate, and I'm not sure if you've had this import approved. Do you have any documentation and discussion anywhere for performing this mass import? I have been manually adding buildings to the Huntington area for quite some time, and editing these buildings you've added would take more effort than adding them by hand.

Thanks!

pkoby
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101740103

Hello,

Welcome to OSM! You've done some great work mapping buildings here. A couple points I'd mention: instead of adding a tiny building named "Vacant Lot", I would simply add nothing, or outline the building on the imagery and use "demolished:building=house". Alternatively, you can simply add a point and put the address on it. For the parking lot, you can add the area for the lot and tag it "amenity=parking".

But great job adding so many buildings with addresses! Feel free to reach out with any questions.

pkoby