Hi! Can I ask you a question? I'm noticing that different parts of pacific park drive have different foot tagging. Some areas are tagged as access foot=yes, while others have foot=no plus a separate tag of sidewalks=mapped separately, and still others have a foot=no tag, but no sidewalk notes. A survey of the surrounding primary and secondary roads indicates that the foot=yes tag is much more common, and I would assume that consistency is preferable. You seem like someone knowledgeable and have some of the most recent edits on this road, so I figured I would ask before I make any edits. Is there a good convention for how to edit this? Thanks!

Hi Stevea, thanks for your thoughtful comments, I appreciate your willingness to help bring me up to speed in this way. Rest assured that I will definitely orient towards collaboration here - please don't hesitate to let me know if you (or anyone else reading this thread) have suggestions - I want this shared map to be the best it can be and that happens when we work together. All the best, and happy mapping.

That makes sense - is there a talk page or anything where that debate has been hashed out in the past? I did some searching and didn't find anything - lots of discourse in other areas but not santa cruz specific. The "illegal" but widely used MTB trail system in santa cruz is complicated and such debates have prompted a lot of ink spilled in other places. I definitely access illegal trails from time to time and don't think they are inherently bad, but do think that people should know the legal status of the trails on which the recreate, and be able to make decisions according to their own ethical framework and evolving relationships with land managers. Do you have any suggestions here? That was why I used the tagging I had seen for trails at UC Santa Cruz in my edits. Thanks!

Hi Stevea - sorry for the misspelling and the short hand - I'll try to be more accurate in the future. I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying. I do a decent amount of trail running and biking in Forest of Nisene Marks SP, so I can ground truth specific questions as they arise. Do you have questions about the change set or things I can be doing better here? I've been on OSM for ages, but have been getting more involved recently.

Hi karsonkevin2. Thanks for taking the time to reach out and for the constructive notes. I'm a sporadic user on this platform, so I apologize for any norm violations I may have made, and I'll make sure to do better in the future. No obligation, but I have a couple questions.

Re: your comments.
1. To clarify, is the gist that the default satellite imagery on the editor is not necessarily accurate, and it's inappropriate to base your edits purely on that imagery? I see you mention other imagery, GPX traces, and other features, is there a standard mechanism by which to verify I'm using accurate information? Or is that something I need to do my due diligence on every time?

2. I didn't know that, thank you for sharing, though I should have realized that for square buildings I shouldn't just eyeball it. For buildings that have a combination of squared and rounded sides, is there a means by which to square the square parts without disrupting the non-square components?

3. Your point about using winter imagery is well taken, though to be a tiny bit defensive I will note that the previous shape of the art building pond also did not align with reality. Still, I should have done my due diligence instead of eyeballing it and going from memory.

Also, is there any sort of limit on the number of changes you should include within one edit? I made over 100 changes within this edit, is that problematic for verification?

Thanks again for your comment.