What "whole thing"? I have tagged WHAT as a beach? Be specific (as to a way # or relation #) and this community will (better) know what you are talking about.

Where does it say we "can't use a park:type tag" on what hundreds of millions of speakers of American English mean when they utter the word park: "a large area of land kept in its natural state for public recreational use." THEN there is what OSM believes/asserts/states/tags/documents, yet I have no idea of what you speak.

Your sense of "nonsensical" does not seem to acknowledge that American English's definition of park includes these. How we tag these in OSM in the USA appears to be improving, (though with you it is about as enjoyable as having teeth pulled). Can you (I mean, literally: ARE YOU ABLE TO) make constructive, specific improvement recommendations here, or do you simply wish to bullyrag a decade of tagging parks in the USA with nothing to show for it instead of a pile of insults?

If you don't know ("relation or something") or can't articulate what is wrong, with specificity, I'm not sure you can complain about it, say it is nonsensical or assert what it "should" be.

Twin Lakes State Beach has (at least) three distinctly-named beaches: Seabright Beach (between San Lorenzo River's cliffs and west of the Harbor), Twin Lakes Beach (distinct from Harbor Beach, which is east of the harbor and not included in state jurisdiction, so OSM maps this exactly this way) and Black's Beach/Lincoln Beach (one or the other might become an alt_name or loc_name, there is endless discussion about this, often on this beach itself about what it is called).

Be careful that you don't smear together TLSB with Twelfth Avenue County Park (a beach which might appear to be part of Black's/Lincoln's, but it isn't) or Thirteenth Avenue County Park (ditto).

Please describe how you are doing "your search," as it might be Nominatim, an overpass-turbo query or a download of OSM data, all of which return what I (and others) consider correct-as-entered (and as of today) data: there ARE four beaches here, as I describe above, though it may be three, with one having two apparently unresolvable names.

Please further articulate why you believe "there should only be one," as I don't understand what about the current tagging doesn't reflect how the beaches are named, how their jurisdictions vary (there are also local and federal parks around here named "Twin Lakes") and that there is a group of them with operator "California Department of Parks and Recreation," quite sensibly.

No, what you call "the beach area" is the "southern polygon" of this STATE PARK (what I and locals call it, the Department of State Parks and Recreation names the whole a State Beach, though only a small fraction of it IS beach), a very carefully constructed polygon made of of no less than eight ways and even other multipolygons due to its complexity. It believed to be the legal delineation of the State Park jurisdiction/boundary, but it is absolutely NOT (as you assert) all beach. So no, it should not be "tagged as a beach," except where it is.

Again, I hear no constructive criticism about how this might be better tagged (and you get wrong many facts about it and its history, reality and the correct tagging that exists here today), instead you assert "unnamed park" (false, it is part of the state parks jurisdiction) and seem to assert that "grass makes" (the Lighthouse area) a "park." You are non-specific about exactly "what" should be a separate area; there are many "separate areas" tagged in this multipolygon, all believed correctly. Posit a legitimate, specific proposal for improvement and the community will consider it.

Another false assertion of yours: the area is not "made up," it (largely? recently? I haven't checked in a while) it derives from CPAD polygons (or should). Read our county wiki. And learn (by listening/reading what has existed for years).

You likely don't know the history of this, it was going to be converted into a giant resort hotel, but locals demanded it become a park, so it did.

You likely also don't know that there is a sliver of county beach, independent of the state beach (known as "Its Beach" with no apostrophe) where law enforcement by state park rangers about nudity (at Its, where nudity is legal) has tried to cite people for it (nudity is not allowed on state beaches but is widely practiced on Santa Cruz County beaches; OSM often tags this where the nudism tag is used). The existing tagging is accurate as to where the boundary is; in 2012 I used a GPS on this beach to determine that this OSM-entered boundary quite accurately follows the sometimes rope-delineated boundary that the county and State Parks sometimes erect to show this. Many beachgoers that day watched as I did this (as GPS was not common then) and later told me that rangers and sheriff deputies who were told of this accuracy wanted to know the source of the data. "OSM" is what my friends told them. Once again, OSM builds communities with accuracy and good tagging.

I don't know what "same for this one means," it is an incomplete sentence about an apparently incomplete action. WHAT "one"?

BTW, please don't use Google (maps or StreetView) as a source for data which enter OSM: that is a violation of our Open Database License (ODbL), which you agreed to in the Contributor Terms when you joined OSM.

I'll say it again as the "front page" of our wiki does: two (official?) rules of OSM are 1): Don't copy from other maps, and 2): Have fun!

You are welcome; thanks for the positive experience and making our map better.

Nope, you assume wrong. This is tagged boundary=national_park because it is a state park, and as states are sovereign in the USA. This is a well-established practice on state parks (and other state lands), especially as they have "equivalent or better protection to national parks," as it has stated in our national_park wiki for years. Please read it (listen).

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but there is nothing "crappy" about this edit. You appear to not be able to offer constructive criticism, instead insulting, berating and assuming. Perhaps you will learn "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

There is no documentation anywhere that says your "instead of" premise is the correct way to tag it, in fact it would fly in the face of many years of documented tradition in OSM. Do recall that boundary=protected_area is a relatively recent tag and its established use on state parks in the USA (or anywhere) is poorly established and a long way from wide consensus. However, as I listen to you to make a case or argue for that stance, while instead you don't — you insult, berate and assume.

I frequently hike here, I've lovingly mapped this park (which is what EVERYBODY here calls it) for a decade and you are the only person who has ever said anything about is is "crappy." Why is that?

It was published by the Santa Cruz County GIS department circa 2009. Please read our county wiki for further history and the reasoning behind this, where Quaker Center is mentioned by name. After a 2009 hike consisting of user:nmixter, userApo42 and me, nmixter's import of SCCGIS's landuse polygons and userApo42's import of state parks, I began to improve both (as did they and other OSM volunteers) and our wiki was born to document what was going on in the county.

In 2012, Santa Cruz County won a BestOfOSM.org Gold Star award, one of the few places in North America to enjoy this accolade, where the site notes Santa Cruz has "near perfect landuse!" This wasn't just me (or Apo or Nate), many Santa Cruz area OSM editors stand on many people's shoulders as we enjoy this recognition.

I'm curious from where you obtained the address of this house (way/35263575). The address is actually 2-3920, not 23920, following a long-standing post office convention in the area when Cliff Drive was split into E Cliff (mostly) in the unincorporated county and W Cliff in the city of Santa Cruz. (Of prefixing addresses on E Cliff with 2- before a further number, which was the old address).

I ask as it is possible your source is incorrect and it may be possible to correct.

Yes, LMCNR being tagged natural=wood does make this polygon redundant, especially as our County wiki makes this clear. However, not everybody reads our local wiki when editing locally (especially Helmchen42, who I believe is in Germany). Ideally, there shouldn't be "local conventions" but rather "everything in OSM is the same all over Earth." That's a lofty goal, though, and Local Conventions inject opportunity to dribble a bit of oil into this sort of squeaky friction. It's not perfect, but it sort of works. BTW, Susan Willats (now retired) was the Assistant Director of TAPS (essentially the campus transportation dept.) and I've had many discussions with her about what we might do on an "amenity=university, but it is heavily wooded: how do we tag?" What we have is what has emerged (and is documented in Local Conventions) yet it still strikes some as odd or in need of fixing, editing or re-tagging. (Especially if they are an armchair-mapper from Germany who simply "flies in" and doesn't read wiki).

Part of this is the (seemingly endless) "landUSE vs. landCOVER" discussion. Landuse (sort of like zoning, how land is both intended to be used and actually used) is not the same as landcover (there are landcover tags, but most people mean natural= (wood, water, grassland... when they say landcover). It's complicated, though it gets better with practice (tagging, seeing rendering, thinking about how tags might or do or don't conflict, seeing what others do...).

You're doing things correctly: send a changeset comment, send a private missive. That's a top-shelf Step 1. SOMEtimes, and yes, it is considered more rude and forceful, I believe it's OK to skip the communication step, assert "I know what's right here, and this ain't it" and edit away, usually by deleting someone's work. However, I caution you this is bold and assertive and people will likely "come after you" if you do this repeatedly with little practice or decent social/writing skills to "talk your way out of it." (The project really does recommend communication first, not all do, especially the grizzled long-timers, like me. That's dangerous on my part as it looks like I think I'm better than others, and I'm not). Be aware of those dangers and do your best to communicate first.

All that said, I deleted that polygon, withOUT talking to Helmchen42 (I've seen his work before, and done this before, but best not say I do that very often out loud).

Keep up the good communication and good work, OSM needs all the GOOD volunteers it can get!

Steve

Redacted.

Oh, there's plenty of "by hand" around here!

(Not to mention that CPAD 2018a has plenty of problems, and will continue to revise to not only update, but correct errors, according to Maiana Voge, Associate Director at GreenInfo).

Steve

Ah, looks like we crossed messages.

OK, CPAD (not CDPA) is well-established around here, we're now on 2018a (or what we're calling v2 — see our county wiki) and I just spoke with GreenInfo (CPAD's publisher) a few weeks ago. Again, please see our wiki, there is a LOT there because there is a LOT going in this county, and there has been for at least 12 years.

I think it's possible why you think the Preserve's boundaries were missing is that it wasn't rendering in Carto. That's because it was (and is) tagged leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area (first doesn't really render and second only draws a green edge).

I'm about to "pull the big switch" (go to bed) after a very long day and we have a scheduled power outage around here tomorrow morning and most of the workday, so I won't be able to get to redacting / correcting until Friday.

Please leave the CPAD v2 conflation in Santa Cruz County to locals familiar with merging it with the SCCGIS (county GIS department) v5 update, also simultaneously going on (see the wiki!) It's complicated, nuanced and while I'm not saying you can't do it, there are cooler heads prevailing getting it done.

Thanks,
Steve

CDPA = California Desert Protection Act? Please don't abbreviate (without a pointer or wiki doc which expands it) as I don't know what your source is. Do you mean CPAD?

And you say "Strava Heatmap." Only a low resolution version works now, you now must use a complicated workaround otherwise. And if you are using the hi-res version, are you using the API (which requires a Strava license/login) or JOSM's imagery prefs? Please know that Strava Slide is broken now, maybe that's what's wrong.

Steve (speaker at multiple OSM conferences and largely, the most prolific author of osm.wiki/Santa_Cruz_County, though there are plenty of contributors around here who do good work.)

Mr. Schneider: What is it, exactly, you attempt to accomplish in this changeset? I visit your edits and find well-established local polygons (virtually all that you touched) shifted by two to ten meters in no predictable direction, leaving gaps in rendering and really, a fair-sized mess.

You are using the most recent version of JOSM (which recently updated), so I assume you are a conscientious and skilled editor who heeds updates. However, your results lead me to conclude otherwise.

Unless I better understand what it is you are attempting to accomplish, I am inclined to redact the entire changeset. I mean, look at way/40896591, a residential polygon minding its own business. Its southeastern corner has been deleted and it has been shifted by at least two meters southeasterly. WTF? BD Eco Reserve itself (relation/9363262) is shifted at least a meter westerly in some places, has corner nodes at wonky, non-square angles and is SE shifted six or eight meters in other places. Huh?

Candidly, I have spent quite a bit of time cleaning up the results of your edits (in Felton and Live Oak, especially) and I honestly can't figure out 1) what it is you attempt to do by editing in this area and 2) how you manage to shift so many polygons while editing. Are you aware you do this?

I'm a polite and patient person, but I have my limits when I see this sort of damage continuing in the map around here.

The driveway into the Moon Rocks area does look more accurate, yes. I'm OK with editing data where it improves things while not causing damage to other existing data. But while you might make improvements in minor ways, the greater damage to existing polygons is real.

I haven't said anything to you since our last exchange of missives around New Year's, but these most recent BD Eco Reserve edits are simply beyond the pale. I don't think it is deliberate vandalism, yet even if it is inadvertent, your edits are worse than unhelpful.

Please, at least say what it is you are trying to accomplish here. And maybe my sharp tone can be explained by a JOSM bug (if you're lucky). Otherwise, I believe a redaction of this changeset is in order, although the single positive contribution I can determine you made — better detailing the driveway near Moon Rocks — I'll leave in.

Have you read our county wiki? There is an ongoing landuse update going on and you really are throwing a large monkywrench of mess into it. I'd like to be able to edit and work in OSM with you in a collaborative way, but not like this. It's simply too much mess for too little benefit.

Thanks, Steve (Santa Cruz, California, decade-long OSMer, Mapper of the Month, January 2017, local guy in this part of the map)

If you give me a specific "way link," like way/42472884, I'll take a look. You might read our County wiki at osm.wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Local_Conventions which says that the campus Natural Reserves are specifically tagged "natural=wood," but even "all wooded" areas of campus are "assumed to be wooded, unless they are tagged otherwise."

Thanks for reaching out / the good dialog.

-Steve

The MNG_AGENCY_TYP should have (and has) become governance_type (thank you). The boundary and protect_class keys were wrongly omitted and have been added (thank you).

So, in short, "thank you!" for helping to correct at least a couple of minor mistakes. As I say in my Mapper of the Month interview, "no mapping task that positively contributes to OSM is too small."

-Steve

By the way, it doesn't always happen this way (the Land Trust might simply continue to protect the land "in perpetuity," but it happens enough to mention that this is how (state, county) parks, open space preserves and similar kinds of lands around here grow, piece by piece. In other words, this might very well someday become part of nearby Portola Redwoods State Park or Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, but "not yet."

Jan: These ALL_CAPS tags are from the CPAD shapefile and I agree with you should be better logically-mapped to OSM tags where possible. See osm.wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Parks for at least some information about CPAD. The ACRES tag is a vestige, you or I can delete it without harm.

The roads are public access, but are only an "easement" through the property, which remains protected by the local Land Trust (you can also visit their web site at https://www.landtrustsantacruz.org/). I'm not sure you have similar organizations in your country. If you are interested, visit the site and click the What We Do / How We Do It tab.

I wouldn't know how to better tag an "easement" road like this: a public road through a land trust private, protected area any better than it is. I hope my explanation is satisfactory, though you are welcome to edit and improve tagging to something better now that you know (or better understand) what the ownership and access are.

-Steve

Fixed with better tagging, including a source tag (which I thought I put on the changeset, but I didn't, as this "snuck in").

It is about 16 hectares of Land Trust-protected land and now is tagged boundary=protected_area + protect_class=7.

So that I might better find any others like this that might exist, may I ask: how did you discover it?

-Steve

Sure, Chris: cleaning up OSM messes is one of my long-time undertakings in the project, especially when the mess is MINE!

I deleted those two nodes (thanks for your specificity), though I couldn't find any others. Perhaps if you tell me your method for discovering these, I can delete them all. (I loaded into JOSM the PA boundary, then used Validator plug-in to check for "unconnected node with no tag"). I don't see others, but that doesn't mean I might have missed a few!

PA is a weirdly-shaped city: it has that "strip" through the Stanford Dish area to connect the southern park areas to the urbanized area (similar to how San Diego connects San Ysidro's Mexico border area to the rest of the city, Chula Vista and National City are conveniently avoided with a clever "strip" through the bay). In the earlier version before I did this cleanup over last weekend, these were totally disconnected in PA, and it truly needed fixing. I think it is largely OK now. (Though, true to OSM fashion, "the map is never done").

Thanks again for pointing out these node glitches and again, should you find any more, I'll clean them up, or if they are minor, I might ask you to do so.

Regards,
Steve

OK, I think I got them all, but if you find more, please let me know. -Steve