I haven't any clue what you know or don't know. If giving you links to a wiki answers your question as I do my best to remain polite in the face of your continuing verbal abuse, that's what I'm going to do: refer you to a wiki. So, RTFM. Prefixing with UP is not "clearly wrong," though it may be "wrong" in your opinion. Find a way to say that and suggest that it be changed for a good reason: see where that gets you.

(There are a fair number of rail mappers in California in OSM, we work together to achieve harmony in the wiki and the map and naming this "UP Valley Subdivision" was a consensus that emerged among us, the results of this are documented in the wiki. Yet I do patiently listen to your opinions about why you think it shouldn't be the way it is).

Not only did I read "the proximity rule" I referred you to, I wrote it. If you think it needs re-writing or disagree with it, OK, "do the right OSM thing about that."

If you think that "IN CALIFORNIA" is somehow a "wrong distance" to apply proximity (it does disambiguate them in the state rail wiki), then how about you say something like "Naming UP Valley Subdivision in Northern California by prefixing with UP isn't necessary in my opinion, as it isn't especially proximate to the SCRRA Valley Subdivision in Southern California. I propose we remove the owner/operator prefixing these, naming them both 'Valley Subdivision.'" I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that might work!

I could even get behind something like that, worded in that sort of positive-suggestion, how-about-this? sort of way. But you didn't (yet still might). See: mapping (being a mapper in OSM) isn't 100% about nodes, ways and geometry marrying geography. In this project, mapping includes reading (and sometimes contributing to) wiki, talking with other mappers (in civil tones, with humility and a polite demeanor) and reaching agreement.

"Reaching agreement" is something you repeatedly have proven to me and others you have difficulty achieving. Your rancorous tantrums so frequently red-line into verbal abuse that I had no choice but to disengage from you. This (changeset) seemed a simple "RTFM" reply I could make which broke my "No Contact," yet your petulant, bitchy, argumentativeness once again emerges. Please, find better methods to act civil and people will likely treat you that way in return.

Try it! Right here and now, take me up on my suggestion above (using your own words). I'll bounce it off a couple of relevant people (maybe I bring in happy5214 and Clorox into the dialog) and perhaps we nod our heads at what you say, agree with you and then you might get what you want. But with a temper tantrum like above, no.

While writing this reply, I was interrupted by yet another post by you to this changeset: you proved you couldn't wait six minutes for me to answer, (wrongly) predicting something I'll do so you'll lose a ten buck bet. Wow, man. Your days here are likely numbered unless you lose the bad attitude and constantly abusing people. I'm about to click the Comment button, but it feels like a mistake engaging with you at all.

There are two Valley Subdivisions in California, that's why. See osm.wiki/California/Railroads, or osm.wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways, where you can read about the "proximity exception" for nearby similarly-named railways by different operators.

You prove once again you cannot say something without insults, and you deepen your slide into "poor OSM mapper" by not performing the simple step of reading the appropriate wiki to answer your question.

Really, very nice work! Thank you for your efforts at improving sidewalks/pedestrian paths.

"Please read our county wiki for further history and the reasoning behind this, where Quaker Center is mentioned by name."

Apology accepted, and your "putting me on notice" (I won't call it a "warning," that's too harsh a characterization) makes me "sit up straight and pay full attention" that my interaction needs improvement toward a direction that is more inclusive / collaborative. Strive as I may to do that, it looks like I haven't done so (recently, here, I'm not sure). Thank you for pointing that out.

I have had good luck (well, some) with Talk pages on specific wiki pages, it is one of many "channels" of communication in OSM which falls in the middle somewhere of wide coverage. Often, only people who have also written something on the page get notified and/or pay attention, but that's more than a changeset comment like this. (Pretty small audience, but still public).

Talk-us would be more wide still, but while it may be appropriate to go there, let's see if the place=city Talk bears fruit, if any. I'm certain this has been more widely discusses, but like many topics, it rises, falls, then goes to sleep again, until it is resurrected and happens all over again. Like mountain ranges, I'd love to see a "once and for all" consensus emerge, but as we both know, that can be elusive, difficult and not always permanent.

I wish us luck in these regards. Thank you again for calling to my attention the impressions you've received from my tone. I really do want the best data in the map, too.

It is neither kind nor fair to say "Steve Knows Best."

I am not aware of "we need to give (the renderer) hints." Could you please point out where OSM says that?

I have added a comment to the place=city Talk page, where it may be more appropriate to take this discussion. (Though, I'm not "shutting this one down," simply providing a wider / more appropriate audience for the topic. We could even take it to talk-us if you like, I welcome wider discussion. (Which 100% negates your assertion that "Steve Knows Best," as I'll accede to whatever consensus emerges).

I know the Bay Area (it's local) and I know LA (I sort of grew up there with frequent family visits). Neither place is really a "quandary" w.r.t. to OSM: simply map them "as they are" and let the renderer worry what to do. Massive suburbs are massive suburbs, but that's the colloquial definition of suburb ("a city on the edge of a large city as part of a metropolitan area"). However, the OSM definition of "suburb" (from our "place" wiki) is different, and so Sunnyvale and Fremont aren't suburbs, they are cities.

Hm, cities with hundreds of thousands of people (just in your list alone: Fremont, with nearly a quarter-million — that's a town?!, Santa Clara, Fairfield, Vallejo, Sunnyvale, Hayward, Richmond, San Mateo), those REALLY should be place=city, I believe there is no good argument to be made there, despite the Alameda example (which is relatively recent wiki addition).

I'd go by a much wider (countrywide) interpretation of this tag. While I notice variations here (as I look), too, clearly, calling 100,000+ cities "towns" needs correction back to place=city. (Please).

I'd also argue that the section/example of Alameda because it is "based on its proximity" (to larger cities) is suspect at a minimum and perhaps ought to be removed. This is either "disregard reality," "tag for the renderer" or both, and I don't believe OSM wants to do that.

Well, Santa Cruz Mountains, following "the ridge line" as it does, isn't perfect either. It is a compromise for which an argument can be made that it efficiently delineates the range, though not perfectly.

I certainly wish we COULD settle on something to do this, even if it becomes regionalized (one method in Europe, one in North America...) or we classify ranges into subtypes. Alas, we haven't yet. It makes searching for them hard and it doesn't seem terribly difficult to solve, though everybody who has thrown something against the wall has had it fail to stick. Good luck to OSM re mountain ranges, we'll need it.

FYI, I use natural=mountain_range and natural=peak nodes embedded in the way. See Santa Cruz Mountains, way/174808173 . I'm not saying this is more correct or yous is wrong (and a lot of people complain no matter what we do), simply informing you that there is a mountain_range tag being used, and around here. Taginfo also reports 39 usages of mountain_range=yes.

Again, it's still fluid, and I've actually been "voted down" for tagging the way I did. We'll see, though the topic has remained unresolved for years and years in OSM. A tip of the hat for your courageous edit for these.

Adam, I'd like to ask you to please take a look at our wiki pages about this (osm.wiki/United_States_admin_level is a start, where it is said that over 50,000 population is a city).

Many of the 30 changes you made seem OK, especially the small rocks, however, San Mateo (105,000), Richmond (104,000), Antioch (103,000), Concord (122,000), Hayward (150,000), Sunnyvale (140,000), Napa (80,000), Vallejo (116,000), Fairfield (115,000), Fremont (230,000), Alameda (80,000), Santa Clara (117,000), Tracy (83,000), Mountain View (74,000), Palo Alto (64,000) and even Petaluma (58,000) are all cities, not towns. Please change these to place=city as they are fully deserving of this key:value pair based on their populations. I suspect you may be tagging for the renderer (an OSM no-no) or how the cities names display. But it's all about the data and tagging accurately. Thank you!

When you say "above it," do you mean "northerly?"

And nope, these are legally and jurisdictionally part of Twin Lakes State Beach. I am not mismapping, I am mapping "what is." If you can specify what is wrong here, say what that is, please. I don't see how these are part of "someone's house," at least as I use DigitalGlobe Premium Imagery. On the more northerly "triangle park," I can see (and have mapped) a trapezoidal building, however, perhaps the State Parks Depatment uses this for storage, I don't know. But it is still "park."

I did not locate the Thirteenth Avenue node, Ian did ten years ago. However, in addition to performing the same three operations noted above I did to "Twelfth" (operator, no leisure tag, renaming properly based on ParkFinder) the node was also moved about ten meters southwesterly to be on the "beach lobe" from the house on 13th compared to where it was before. Done. (It may be more correct to break apart the almost-maybe-it-does crossing multipolygon boundary — that trapezoidal "lobe," but let's see if a cleanup by SCCGIS (v6?) and/or CPAD (v3?) does this first. We can if they don't.

Wow, a ten year old node from Ian Dees' GNIS node import which nine years ago was changed by me. OSM got a LOT of mileage out of that, and with minimal fuss!

But since Adamant1 is fussy here and now, I discovered (from here, http://www.scparks.com/Home/Parks/ParkFinder.aspx , you might want to take a look) that it has been renamed "12th Avenue Coastal Access."

Consequently, I have (somewhat cleverly?) migrated the tags from the node to the staircase (deleting the leisure=park tag) and deleting the node. I added operator=Santa Cruz County Parks Department to better denote that it is SCCPksDept which maintains these steps/staircase. Done.

I have no idea which park you refer to in this changeset. Please specify by ID # of the node, way or relation.

I've owned property for many years which includes nearly 200 feet of creek which are part of a "riparian corridor," also quite literally "my backyard" (private ownership residential real property). Only once in 17 years have I have heard hikers down there, they said "we thought this was part of the park." Cupping my hands, I yelled down (I couldn't see them, I could only hear them) "no, it's private property...". Who is correct?

This is similar to, but not exactly the same as beaches being BOTH said to be private property, yet also able to be legally (not always physically) accessed by the public. Who is correct. While you are at it, go look up the "Streisand Effect," the legal doctrine of which was won in court by a local friend of mine, active in OSM (we've collaborated on bike route mapping together).

Besides, with your lack of specificity as to a node, way or relation by identifying it by number (please get into the habit of this, as changesets contain many elements), I have no idea about which park or beach you might ask me to discern.

Relation ...331 remains, ...427 was deleted.

Now rendering, let's see if I got it right, though the renderer is only an aid, not the ultimate authority on whether or not the data are correct.

There are two relations, 9415427 and 9415331. This is likely incorrect and an oversight, I am examining both how best to conflate both relations into a single one and how to tag it with your concerns. It appears the northerly one is colloquially known as "Santa Maria's Beach" and while it isn't part of Rockview Drive County Park, the two polygons that make up Santa Maria's Beach (one seems to be correctly tagged beach, one is tagged leisure=park, yet is on a beach).

As my county parks department calls this a park, and I and hundreds of thousands of others make it their job to channel what people live and visit here want, I accede to their nomenclature by tagging this a park.

I understand you wish for there to be a wholesale conversion of potentially every park in California to not be tagged leisure=park, yet you have not proposed any plan to do this, an ad hoc approach must suffice unless and until you or somebody does.

Stand by, I am now considering some edit choices which I hope will clarify and improve.

I disagree (that it needs to lose the park:type tag). Can you offer some (wiki?) documentation about the park:type tag that would support your assertion?

And exactly where is the boundary between Black's and Lincoln? Many (I've been there and asked people) conflate the two and also disagree with you that Black's and Lincoln are "separate." My sources are based on local knowledge. What are yours?

Multipolygons (and their complexity) are necessary to describe complexity. To simplify them into "unnecessary" relations (which is plainly wrong, as relations are the proper and supported data structure OSM uses to do this) would be vandalism, as it would destroy the richness now captuted in the data.

Offer constructive, specific criticism, and the community will consider your proposal(s). Simply crying "wrong" will get you nowhere.