Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

From which of three imaging sources cited?

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at least one commercial landuse were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

A boundary that went "to (too) far right" based on what source? One of the two imagery_used layers in your imagery_used tag? Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous polygons were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries based on what source? One of the three imagery_used layers in your imagery_used tag? Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and commercial landuses were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

A boundary that went "to (too) far right" based on what source? One of the three imagery_used layers in your imagery_used tag? Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous polygons were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

These parks aren't "fake," especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at least one commercial landuse were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Yes, "shut up and map" on my part turned into vandalism on your part. While you might make a case I was rude, I can and do make a case you are a vandal.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at least one commercial landuse were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons, at least one commercial landuse and a park was removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons were removed, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons, at least one commercial landuse and a park was removed, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach calls it "Sunny Cove Beach County Park." https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach talks about how County Parks gets to name things in the area. Importantly, http://www.scparks.com/Home/Parks/ListofAllCountyParks.aspx shows County Parks administers the beach, yet not all of it is beach, as it also includes "Sunny Cove Drive Veteran’s Building" (way/686194442) which clearly isn't a beach, it's (to me) part of a park, the building is surrounded by trees and scrub, it is run by county parks, which, here, also includes beach area.

BTW, I believe it started largely at osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dpark#Do_beaches_qualify_as_parks.3F as Adamant1 asked the question embedded in the link. Though I agree it doesn't matter who started it.

I didn't say the Parks Department owns the building, I said the Parks Department owns the land. Buildings on land are also owned by the owner of the land, however they may be used. (Storage, leased to others, whatever). This IS "sound logic." What I said I didn't know is what the Parks Department uses the building for. That's all.

Speculate all you like about curtains and planters, meanwhile, I'll shrug (and pay little heed to word salad by others). You haven't really proven or disproven anything. And all I have asserted in OSM is what State Parks says.

Prove to yourself this is state park land: download the .kml file at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=862 and see that it is part of what state parks owns. If you think (now that you know it is owned by state parks) that it is something else, tag it that way. But it IS part of Twin Lakes State Beach, however it is used, so, I tagged that way. I see little offered by you except "I think people live there" to say otherwise, and while that may be true, it both doesn't make sense and it doesn't change that State Parks themselves say "this is part of this state beach."

I don't recall "we" (you or I, or OSM generally) "have already established else everything owned or maintained by the parks department doesn't automatically get tagged as a park," but if you want to say that, a good first step would be examples and counter-examples to offer as evidence/proof. (Maybe you meant "elsewhere" instead of "else," I have only your misspellings by which to glean what you mean).

I'd be fine leaving it on, I'd be fine if Adamant1 were to remove it, then document that he did that in the wiki (saying why, that it is unlikely for these to be confused, except in a California-wide context), as I agree they are not proximate except for being in the same state.

Minh, thank you for your usual dose of sanity.

In short, "what you paint, ought to be good."

You are welcome. Keep up politeness, it can and does redeem you.

I haven't bad mapping 99% of the time. 1% of the time I have bad mapping. That is OK, we (OSM) corrects our mistakes; we are human.

If I say you are 99% vituperative, yet by thanking me I say you are 1% polite by thanking me, OK. We do better. I'll even go to 2% or 3% progress because we've made some minor, incremental progress in other places. There is a long, slow, hill to climb ahead, keep up the good effort!

In short, if you can't write a bug report, what you call a bug (defect) can't be fixed, or only gets a vague bit closer because YOU were vague in the first place.

I have edited tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of things. As I've said you repeatedly, use way #s or node #s or relation #s like a big boy.

YOU said "wholesale conversion," not me.

"A few days since I wrote what?" Where? Chase your own damn tail.