A very good suggestion! I've now added a Note with the same text; thank you. SteveA

Hi Nate:

As you say you have some local knowledge here, is there any of whether CORP has multiple subdivisions (one might be named Siskiyou, and only be in California, I'm not sure) or whether it's "one medium-long Class II railway" (and named a single thing) in both states? I'd like to express name tags and relation elements as best we might.

Thanks, SteveA

Nice work!

A few more things: the "building" denoted by way/563749459 (and similar ones nearby) seem likes it wants to denote a fence. For that, tag a way (not a skinny polygon like you have here) with barrier=fence. These can "link together" (if they do in real life) so you can get pretty complex sets of ways that are connected by nodes (with T-intersection triplexes or quad-intersection quadruples at the "square" of four houses having a common fence "corner.")

I would like to ask you to simply delete that "shading installation" as it isn't really a building as it is tagged, and it is extremely unusual for such a small (micro-mapped) object to find its way into OSM. Up to you, but it simply seems wrong to me to put this in. Other micro-mapping you have done (like the fire pit and fences, once you change them to barrier) are good mapping and (imo) should stay in the map, once their tags are corrected.

Keep up this work, there is nothing wrong with improvement along a learning curve, and everybody has their own learning curve!

SteveA

Very quickly, no you don't HAVE to add an address to a house. But, look at our wiki page for "building" and you'll see that "building=yes" is generic, and if you KNOW that the building is a house, "building=house" is a better tag.

Also, whatever that series of a dozen 7' x 1' buildings that are a foot apart is simply weird. While it might be "something" it isn't tagged correctly, (no name, "yes" is generic...). What IS this structure, anyway?!

Much better (attitude).

When you say "knew of the search feature," that's good, it means that you are using our wiki to see how to properly tag. You must do this, and I suggest that you "take small steps" with features that you know quite well (houses, parks in your neighborhood, straightening out streets that might be crooked from the TIGER import, adding sidewalks, what about that speed bump near that one house -- have you figured out how to tag that yet? OSM does have a way to tag all of these things and you can learn them and map them. Pace yourself. Learn a few things each day and map a few things each day. See how the map renders them after a while. See how the community reacts to your edits (not mean, or throwing rocks at you, or saying you are arrogant or you messed up...it gets better if you make mistakes and then truly do wish to do well).

Take your time. Treat the map like something that will be here next year, into the 2020s, into the 2050s and beyond: we really are mapping for the far future here, and that starts with making an EXCELLENT map today.

I'm going out to dinner with some friends and so I can't be so interactive with you like this tonight any longer. But please feel free to "missive" me by clicking on my name stevea and you can send me a message with OSM's built in "missive" service. Bye for now. Steve

Changing your username is a distinct sign that you are trying to be disingenuous with your identity. In a project like this, the "currency" with which we both establish and assert our facility with the map is measured in experience, years (or months, if you show skill) and a willingness to listen, learn and show others (like me and many others watching you and this discussion) that you wish to contribute in a harmonious and exemplary fashion.

While we do offer lots of encouragement and a bit of learning curve time for beginners, we also watch people when they show signs of arrogance, unwillingness or obstinacy. You are walking a very fine line of that right now, which is why I say "yellow alert." It might even be orange or red, if we are using such color-coding.

It is not that the micro mapping PER SE is inappropriate, it is your attitude that you would jump into our map crying "sex offender!" and get a lot wrong (foot-apart buildings, that's simply whack...) swimming pools as lakes and streams as rivers. Do you know how to read our wiki? Do you know how to follow directions and map as others map? Do your buildings have names the way that we name them (if a house, building=house, name=Howard's End if it doesn't have an address, for example, or how to use our addr: tagging scheme.

You simply seem as if you wish to map the way YOU want to map rather than the way that OSM wants you to map. Take a step back that you have elected to join a project with rules and that it appears to many that you are running roughshod over them with your attitude and mapping. In short, shape up or ship out. Plenty of other people "figure it out" (read the wiki, follow directions, find others who can help you map better if you have questions, be nice, try to not have an attitude of arrogance and "why is that any of your business...") and you might do well in OSM. But the way you are going, you'll need to seriously readjust your attitude, or others will simply redact your edits as noise.

We believe in high-quality mapping here, and when we see otherwise, we both say something and do something about it.

Before we get to that, please explain why you used to use the username ivan999 and now you use RubikCubical. That seems disingenuous and doesn't endear you to the good graces of this project. Yellow alert to you.

Something ridiculous is going on here, ivan999. There are many people watching what you are doing and you may be asked to leave our project unless you map according to our principles. Your behavior is noted.

For example, the series of buildings at the house immediately to the left of the speed bump (will you add a traffic_calming=speed_bump tag here) are simply ridiculous and should not be tagged like that nor exist as buildings in the map. That looks like you have built several retaining walls a few centimeters apart, and that is foolish, low-quality twaddle in this map. It is noise.

If you want to map well here (in OSM) read our wiki (more), watch what others do and start by better emulating us and grow into the methods by which we do things. If you have something "new" to add, there are better ways to do that.

Maybe I was armchair mapping from a satellite or heat map or county records, my source of that segment might be hazy. My work in OSM has improved over the last five years, I'll say. The tagging changes and evolves, too.

I do respect private property and signage as I see it when hiking or biking. That day I was cautious and had prior property owner permission in the area. They almost asked me to lunch with them on a fresh pizza coming out of their oven, I was anxious to get hiking after explaining my GPS to the curious and inquisitive grandmother there.

Regards,
SteveA

Well, I recall that segment as "finding my way back across some other people's private property" and I was simply blazing a trail back to "a road, any road" so that I could find my way back to Long Ridge Road.

Done!

SteveA

Some very nice people live there, they opened up their land to me and whispered about paths into Demo. What I literally stumbled across, I documented. What you found you documented!

I think it's cool we do this mapping. We do this on public land, a public forest, actually, which is a sort of agricultural industrial zone, often changing, a bit treacherous in places and I think we both agree, difficult to tag accurately!

We both do a good job as we tag here, especially after reading your comments. However, we likely want a "more gentle" sac_scale rating here, shall we leave off "demanding?"

I don't know if you know that "skid trails" are used in production forests like this with that nomenclature meaning a particular sort of rough right-of-way/trail. Yes, it is 100% construction zone in the Demonstration Forest: rough and changeable everywhere!

Happy mapping,
Steve

I disagree that this is a route=mtb as way too much of it is on roadway and mtb is on surface=dirt or gravel or otherwise off-road.

You might also mean that it is a snowmobile or ski trail, which means this is also tagged wrong. You might want to read our wiki on route=piste or others. In short, please remove or modify the route tag here, it is incorrect.

It may also be that off-road segments need to be kept in this route and on-road segments put into a network=rcn route it is on-road bicycle portions of a route. Please fix this, even if it means discussing what might be done right here. SteveA

Thanks for your good answer.
SteveA

Hi SikeMo:

Usually pretty nice work on your (closed!) bike trails. However, now there are two parallel Dark Monsters, and I'm not sure which is which.

One of them is Dark Monster, does the "other one" (don't know whether I mean east or west) have a different name?

Happy mapping,
SteveA

It's a good question, Andy, and it's nice to text with you in near real-time (I am a fan of your edits, you are dedicated!).

What you are asking is at an edge of history in OSM as a project: in this part of California circa 2008-2010, this is how large parks were imported into this part of California. OSM community was early (though effective) and the structure of it has grown much, as well as movement forward to "standardize" on "how to do parks."

As this (the semantics of "leisure=park" in OSM) truly is fluid, and you are correct to nail it down in our wiki. However, nothing in that wiki directly contradicts what we do here. So if you're asking for a history lesson of "how things have gotten tagged around here," there is one, I know some of it w.r.t. this park, and there is an explanation for it. I know there are newer ways of doing things, the situation remains a bit fluid.

In short, this IS a park, we truly must make our wiki's semantic definition elastic enough to include this county park. Joseph Grant Park as it is now tagged in OSM meets that test. Might we agree there?

If you have more accurate or higher precision or both data, of course, bring 'em on and upload!

Is there a different tagging you prefer? OK, protected_area is getting to be all the rage for certain things, yes, I agree, and yet, JGP is a park. Right?

Again, great to make your acquaintance,
Steve

Yes, SHAPE_STAr and SHAPE_STLe are mentioned in the wiki. Look, this is an eight-year old import with data that are carefully curated, documented and promised to not only be updated (with v4) but also improved with the next version (via multipolygonization). In the initial import (messy as documented, but substantially improved by me) these tags were not a problem, as "foreign" tags in an import were not so much an issue in 2009 as they seem to be today.

If you really have a problem with these tags, propose what you wish to see happen. However, I'm telling you that they will substantially go away and/or improve in the next version of the updated import data.

I continue to say that there is not any issue here (that has not already been addressed in either the county wiki or this changeset discussion). Does there remain a problem? Thanks for any additional clarification you might offer.

As has become the custom over the years as our attitudes and conventions towards imports changes (and improves), these tags will be reduced or removed altogether in the v4 update to these data, anticipated in 2019 or 2020. As per the "Multipolygonization" discussion on talk-us in November and December of this year, it is likely that I will expend the effort to substantially multipolygonize these data during the v4 update.

No fixes necessary, they are part of an "official" (local government) import, now in its third revision since the initial 2009 v1 import.

See osm.wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landuse

In this controlled discussion (on my part), the changes herein WERE indeed the subject: it appears not listening to them nor parsing their consequences is one of the blithely scattered activities of bdiscoe as he attempts to keep his scores high on the leaderboard while he preys on other under-mapped parts of Earth.

There is no "local preference for some unusual interpretation of OSM's tags" in Santa Cruz County: indeed, as noted by me and ignored by bdiscoe, landuse tagging is very well explained in our wiki as to its history (and thousands of corrections over many years), has gone through three revisions of improvements, and has won awards.

Instead, it is bdiscoe's apparent lack of understanding (or unwillingness to extend it) that landuse, natural and leisure tags are complex and can (and do) cause confusion among many OSM editors, wherein some think that because of what they see in Bing (landcover), those tags should supersede.

Again, I'll make my point (which bdiscoe never addressed): if bdiscoe has BETTER data to add here, he is welcome to do so. THAT is a tenet of OSM. However, he does NOT have such data and he wants to keep upping his stats, so that is the real reason he does not enter better map data here. Don't be fooled otherwise by what he calls a local unusual interpretation. We're just fine here, and always improving our tagging. Anyone remains welcome to do so, although a requirement that you bring to the table BETTER data does remain a requirement. Also required is basic knowledge between landuse and landcover, the root of bdiscoe's misunderstanding.