Additional sources:
https://www.bawsca.org/uploads/userfiles/files/2024%20State%20of%20the%20Regional%20Water%20System%20Report_Final%202024-12-05_5PM.pdf
https://www.nps.gov/yose/getinvolved/hetchyproject.htm
Bing Streetside

Go ahead and delete them

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your changes so far.
When you make edits like this one, remember that bicycle=no is about legal access: bicycle=no
If the rules allow bicycles but the path looks overgrown, one or more of these tags may be more appropriate:
smoothness=*
trail_visibility=*
mtb:scale=*

Otherwise, if the path is completely overgrown, consider retagging it as disused:highway=path ( abandoned:=** ) or even deleting it.

This edit distorted the shape of two buildings. Please don't do that.

Unless this business uses the entire building, you should not add amenity/shop/other business tags to the building. Instead, map the business as a new point inside the building.

The new commercial area 1289369703 is not a correct use of landuse=commercial ( landuse=commercial ) and is probably not verifiable ( osm.wiki/Verifiability ), so I propose deleting it.
If this the area that some business serves, it belongs in some other database that you can overlay on top of the OpenStreetMap data.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152245561

I'm glad that you are continuing to improve the OpenStreetMap data.
The bike lanes on Brannan Street have no physical separation from the car lanes. Following standard mapping practices, we don't add them as separate ways.
Please remove the way you added ( way/1255099834 ) and any other cycleways you added that are just bike lanes.
Please read osm.wiki/Bicycle and follow the suggestions there.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding accurate bicycle infrastructure in your earlier changes. Those look correct to me.

However, your more recent changes on Yerba Buena Island are not accurate.
1. Based on my survey two days ago, there is no bicycle infrastructure on the north side of Macalla Road except shared lane markers going downhill toward Treasure Island. In this case, we don't use a separate highway=cycleway.
2. Your reversal of the direction of the cycleway is not accurate. The separated cycleways are one-way uphill (toward Yerba Buena Road) on both sides.
3. Under Interstate 80, you added a cycleway with some bridges. There is something there that looks like it will be a cycleway later, but as of two days ago it is fenced off and not open. The bridges are completely wrong.

I'm planning to revert these changes sometime in the next few days.

Please read cycleway=* and follow the example of other OpenStreetMap bicycle infrastructure in the area.

Thanks

The steps you added ( way/1159299006 and the parallel steps) seem unlikely to me based on my visits to this terminal over the last year. They look like they would have been accurate years ago before the rebuilding of terminal 1. What data source did you use for those steps, and how recent is it?

Thanks for responding. To learn about best practices for names, please read name=* .
I'd like to emphasize that we don't get to make up names just based on what we think sounds good. Names in OpenStreetMap almost always need to be based on signs, official government records, or common usage by locals.
When you add or change a name, please give a source for that name in your changeset description.

I have reverted this vandalism in changeset/123626799.

This changeset has some problems:

* Unless a surprising change has recently happened, Ocean Front Walk is definitely not a road. Please pay attention to what you are editing.
* way/641851265 should not be highway=unclassified because it is in a residential area, with residential buildings on both sides.
* Based on your history, I have no reason to believe that way/641851265 is not named Niagara Avenue.

I am now reverting the above aspects of this change and your other change that renamed Niagara Avenue.

The iD editor has "i" (info) buttons next to many of the controls in the "Edit feature" pane. Click on these, read the text that appears, and click the links to the wiki to read more. That is a good way to learn how to map in a helpful way.

This is the third time (at least) that you have added a ref to these roads. Like every other time, you have not given any sources or explanation to justify this change.

Your change is inconsistent with every other modern-day map that I have seen, and based on my local knowledge it is not supported by any signs or other evidence on the ground.

When you make a contentious change like this, you need to provide a good explanation for why your change is correct and the previous consensus is wrong.

Note: In this case, old_ref is the appropriate tag to label these as roads that were part of an old version of US 101. A historic route relation could also be useful (for example, see how another user has added a relation for historic US 101 further north in San Diego County).

I am now reverting this change and your two related changes.

This looks like a good changeset. Out of curiosity, did you do a survey to confirm that the minor road does not exist?
I noticed that someone else added that road back (changeset/114653412), and if that was wrong I'd like to clear things up and delete the road again.

I surveyed this area today and found that the street signs still say Gleason Road, so I reverted your name change (changeset/117544224).

As usual, if you have evidence that the name of this street has really changed, please put it in your changeset description or a comment.

Thanks for responding.

Let's talk about the California State Route 56. Supposing that there was no assembly resolution naming the freeway after someone, why is it named "Torrey Pines Freeway" or "56 Freeway"? Are there road signs, official proclamations, or something else verifiable that gives it one of those names?

Hello again,

This changeset, like many other changes you have made over the years, changes the names of some roads and other features. As usual, you have not given any source or explanation to show that your changes reflect reality.

Like I have said at least once before, we are making a set of map data that represents reality and is verifiable ( osm.wiki/Verifiability ).

I and other users have commented on your changesets asking for clarification, and reverted several of your changes after doing surveys and additional research.

Although some of your changes look reasonable, I am forced to assume that you do not have the same goals as the OpenStreetMap project. Your edits make the map data less accurate and waste everyone's time.

Do you have anything to say in your defense?

After surveying this area and searching the web, I did not find any evidence that the "CyberPark"-related names that you added are based in reality. Therefore, I have reverted the name changes.

Do you have any evidence to support your changes? If you do, I will apologize and restore your changes.

I realize that it would have been better to ask this before reverting your changes, but based on your past behavior I did not expect a response.

(the description got cut off; here's the rest of it) ... visible from the street in a survey.

I surveyed the area near the intersection of University Avenue and Park Boulevard today. I found that the street signs for Herbert Street and Centre Street had those names, not your modified names. I did not find any on-the-ground evidence of the names you gave to some alleys (in this changeset, and also your other changeset/63486778).

Therefore, I reverted these changes to street names in changeset/117068828.

Please do not add names (or other tags or features) that are not supported by real-world verifiable information. We are mapping the real world, not your vision of an alternate reality.

Also, it's important to write descriptive comments for your changes ( osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments ).

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your first two changesets (this one and 116928135) have some good additions, but unfortunately caused some problems by moving several road segments, and some parts of the boundaries of Oceanside and Vista, far away from where they should be.

I had to revert those two changesets, and then I tried to re-insert the buildings that you added correctly.

In your future editing, please check that you have not accidentally moved features that you did not plan to edit.

Also, please add descriptive comments to your changes ( osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments ).

Thanks