Many times, but there are no values for that key which seem appropriate. It may be time to "coin" one (make one up). However, it is so local and unique, that I have been reluctant to do this.

You might do a Google search on "Santa Cruz sandhills" or look at http://www.santacruzsandhills.com if you wish to do some research to help me. These have always proven fairly easy to map (crudely, with a rough polygon) but I always get stuck when it is time to tag them. They have many unusual aspects to them like shark's teeth from millions of years ago to strange green beetles which are found nowhere else. It's like a strange weird island world in the middle of the forest. I actually live within site of one and it is a genuinely unusual feature upon this local part of the Earth.

These are a unique-to-the-area geological formation of rock/sand which give rise to the frequent quarries in the area (many largely "played out" and now closed). In the middle Miocene epoch (about 15 million years ago) this area was underwater/ocean and today these areas are often part of boundary=protected_area polygons because of the endemic unique plant and animal life that are there, some are found only on Earth right here and are endanged species.

As I am not sure what the proper "geological-oriented" tags are, and these ARE unique local geography, I have identified them (roughly, the polygons are rather crude) so that they may be tagged with better tags in the future as these evolve. Do you have any suggestions?

Hi maleo818: Welcome to OSM!

I saw your initial edit at Swan Lake Garden. This isn't really a park; the area you drew over has apartment buildings and is part of the larger residential area known as "swan lake garden" as a residential polygon.

If you like, you might try adding (as nodes, not lines) things like the bbqs you mention (tag the node with amenity=bbq) and you can also add amenity=bench for exactly where a bench node is. You can even do the same with a node tagged natural=tree for individual trees.

However, I'd like to delete this polygon you drew as it isn't a park (even a private one), it is a an area surrounded by building=apartments (you can draw those as polygons and tag them just like that) and they should display (render) on the web a few minutes later.

I'm happy to answer any questions, as OSM is a truly fun project and everybody wants you to have fun while mapping.

Regards,
SteveA
Santa Cruz

Thank you for your quick reply. I can certainly endeavor to reduce and/or conflate tags on future CPAD polygon entries, as I do agree that they do contain a large amount of metadata. Some is useful and some is not (to OSM) and as long as a polygon in OSM can be identified as mapping back to a unique polygon in CPAD data, we will have the two-way flow of data identity we need to keep a good process going. This makes the UNIT_ID the most critical metadata tag for us to continue to use going forward.

OSM is made up of many people with many good ideas. It improves not only as we do good things (like adding high-quality data) but also as we listen to each other. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

SteveA
California

I wouldn't say "huge" as it is a few dozen edits over the course of a few hours in a single day (and I'm not done yet) against the over 12,000 edits I have entered over the last eight years.

Is your problem with "foreign tags?" I kept these in to distinguish these CPAD polygons from the major landuse polygons (from SCCGIS, see our Santa Cruz County wiki) that I have manually kept improved (over three revisions and six years) and for which our county has won a "Gold Star Award" at BestOfOSM.org for "nearly perfect landuse." In addition, I recently won "Mapper of the Month" award and certainly don't want to "rustle any feathers" in the project.

However, I don't see a problem with these polygons, their tags, the slow and careful method by which I enter these and conflate them against existing data, as the tags they contain allow these CPAD polygon data (which frequently update) to be continually updated into the future, which I intend to do, similar to the way I update SCCGIS landuse polygons.

OSM and CPAD (callands.org) are in an excellent position to continue collaboration which "feeds" both of our map data in an ever-upward and ever-better way, so both data sets improve over time as we complement and improve each others geo data. That is a lofty goal, with wide and large benefits for many and is now being achieved.

So, in short, what is it you propose, exactly?

SteveA
California

Yeah, I think this is nonsensical and suggest it be removed. Could be a Pokemon Go spoof.

Can you please explain the source of your knowledge for why you set a significant amount of Northwestern Pacific Railroad to disused? (Including sidings)? This railway is in a long period of rehabilitation for both industrial/freight and passenger usage and does not appear to be disused. I intend to change this back to active rail if I don't receive an answer from you.

Please don't tag a whole building as elevator=yes, place the location of the elevator exactly where it is and tag it with highway=elevator.

As an avid mapper at UCSC I agree that the names of specific "cardboard dumpsters" needs to be dialed back here. Let's tag these properly instead of overloading their name= tags.

Hey, come on, it's just a stub of the old Anaheim to Santa Ana branch from the 1870s-1880s. A lot of the rest has been "subsumed" by I-5 and I'm trying to get California rail to be more complete. You're kidding, right?! (Choo!)

I do respect OSM, and am a respected OSM bicycle mapper since 2009, even speaking about national bicycle routing in the USA at SOTM-US in 2014 (see http://vimeo.com/91897324) AND I extensively consulted with Richard Fairhurst on his cycle.travel router, for which he publicly and profusely thanked me. The mail you refer to is in answer to me (you are welcome to check). But this is not a measuring contest, is it?

Please see our wikis on United States/Bicycle Networks and WikiProject U.S. Bicycle Route System for the vast amount of work we do on bicycle routes here in the USA to achieve good OSM harmony.

I would be happy to see deleted on GDMBR the network=icn tag, agreeing with your assertion that this is a route=mtb. It seems like "both" but only because it is international. But seeing as network=icn captures the international semantic AND ALSO (incorrectly) implies a paved route, network=icn can and should be deleted, imo.

Let's end this by tagging GDMBR route=mtb and NOT tagged network=icn or network=ncn. Considering the cycle_network=ACA (and I am familiar with many staff and officers of Adventure Cycling Association, the USA's premier national biking organization), this route could/should even be properly deleted from OSM altogether, as since ACA routes are copyrighted, entering them violates ODBL.

You are NOT "fixing" this route by changing its tags from network=icn to network=ncn. This is under no circumstances a network=ncn route. It is an international mountain bike route and that is NOT an ncn by any definition. If you are making this change so that you can see the route render in a particular renderer, you are misusing OSM.

Please read our wiki(s), please follow the rules.

About your comment "changed tags for proper rendering." This is just plain wrong, and is blatant "coding for the renderer." We have been down this road before, and many times. I tire of this edit war, and it must stop.

We need to establish a truce with GDMBR. GDMBR is NOT an ncn, as it crosses an international boundary. I have changed it to icn because it does, and this was even agreed to by a current or former member of OSM's Data Working Group (for lack of a better analogy, we can think of the DWG as OSM's "data police").

I also saw that you cloned (duplicated) the relation and tagged it route=mtb, which I believe and hereby assert is the ultimately correct solution. I have also heard from others (more international OSM volunteers outside of the USA) that they find the solution of calling ANY mountain bike route either an ncn or an icn as completely wrong: that is not done anywhere else in the world, and so we should not do it here in the USA (and/or Canada).

So, I propose we delete relation/3161159 (GDMBR tagged with network=ncn) and we keep relation/6073693 (GDMBR tagged with route=mtb).

I will not tolerate a GDMBR relation with either network=icn or especially network=ncn simply because you find it convenient that it renderers where-ever you like to see it rendered. That is not how OSM works.

About your comment "changed tags for proper rendering." This is just plain wrong, and is blatant "coding for the renderer." We have been down this road before, and many times. I tire of this edit war, and it must stop.

We need to establish a truce with GDMBR. GDMBR is NOT an ncn, as it crosses an international boundary. I have changed it to icn because it does, and this was even agreed to by a current or former member of OSM's Data Working Group (for lack of a better analogy, we can think of the DWG as OSM's "data police").

I also saw that you cloned (duplicated) the relation and tagged it route=mtb, which I believe and hereby assert is the ultimately correct solution. I have also heard from others (more international OSM volunteers outside of the USA) that they find the solution of calling ANY mountain bike route either an ncn or an icn as completely wrong: that is not done anywhere else in the world, and so we should not do it here in the USA (and/or Canada).

So, I propose we delete relation/3161159 (GDMBR tagged with network=ncn) and we keep relation/6073693 (GDMBR tagged with route=mtb).

I will not tolerate a GDMBR relation with either network=icn or especially network=ncn simply because you find it convenient that it renderers where-ever you like to see it rendered. That is not how OSM works.

Very nice work. The map appreciates your efforts here!

Please read the wiki I suggest. There is a long history (not OSM history, actual real-life history) that is highly relevant here. I spoke on these topics at SOTM-US in 2014 and am in frequent contact with Kerry Irons and upper management of ACA on a weekly basis. If you refer to Cycle Map layer as not rendering, it is Andy Allan who is responsible, he and I are also in frequent communication. Leave this icn, please. I can ask Andy to render icn if you want to see it, but no guarantees he will do so.

You need to read our wiki pages at osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks . There, you will see that this IS an icn as well as understand how the historical context of why it was rcn AND how ACA routes shouldn't even be in OSM. Don't tag for the renderer, and this DOES render at waymarkedtrails.

And how is it you have permission to enter these data? ACA routes are copyrighted and unless you have specific permission to enter these into OSM (I strongly suspect you don't), they are a violation of OSM's Contributor Terms and our ODBL.

Max, I don't know how I can help. It might have been g246020 who did this, and much less likely, it might have been me. I am seriously busy on other tasks this week. Perhaps I could take a look at the relation and tracks this weekend (January 9-10, 2016). I'll try to leave another comment here, but I don't believe I have much more to offer here, except for perhaps deleting duplicate tracks. The thing is, I'm not sure which ones are "more correct," so it seems better of me to simply not edit this area at all (any further).

g246020?