Nasty storm recently. I'm weathering it OK.

What is your source for the lcn 11 extensions along Monterey Highway? I'm not doubting you, more like fumbling myself for a good/recent source for those data and I wasn't sure I saw it in your tagging/source comments.

Though there are four layers listed in imagery_used, I don't know if you are seeing city bike route signs in those, are using an online map I might not know has recently updated, or what. I didn't know of such "double-routing" (lcn 01, parts of lcn 17 and lcn 11 sharing common infrastructure). Thanks.

The map and I appreciate it. Thanks!

Of course, "rode" them yourself. Almost a pun!

I don't doubt these are bicycle routes. However, they might be "private" routes, it looks like ADC (ADCT?) publishes them, perhaps under copyright. If so, you'd need permission and/or a clear ODbL (OSM's license) grant to enter the route data, unless you road them yourself (e.g. capturing GPX tracks on a GPS).

Also, the one that is tagged network=ncn is not correct. ncn is reserved for USBRs (national, public routes in the USBRS; see our wiki). I'm not sure if these do fit into a network, as those are usually public (national, state/regional, local means county or city) because private routes like these aren't signed. (In rare cases, they might be, like mtn bike routes on an expansive campground area, or numbered routes in a big office park like a movie studio).

Please see osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks where at most, such route networks are lcn (local cycleway network). The rcn are for state routes (in USA) and ncn for USBRS. But I think that the network=* tags on these need to be edited, I'm not sure how exactly without knowing more about the network (public, private...).

Happy to share with you what I know about this, please reply with any questions you may have. Thanks.

I've deleted the tag.

It is an abbreviation from the Santa Cruz County GIS Department's Zoning.zip file (details in the SCC wiki) for "Park." But in my experience, especially recently, these map logically map much less well to what OSM considers leisure=park. The tag can be deleted, and in fact, it has been my practice since v3 to reduce such superfluous tags in OSM data by deleting them (I don't always, I'm getting better). However, much work to do so remains. I'd say the map is in a "reduction to eventual elimination" phase of these tags being in OSM.

In changeset/69743537, I conflated tags from the node (GNIS import) to the way representing the amenity, deleted the node, then stripped superfluous tags from BOTH the GNIS import and Nathan's (nmixter's) import off of the way representing the amenity boundary. So, no more duplication.

This guy needs a new hobby.

I have nothing good to say here, so I'll say nothing at all.

I have nothing good to say here, so I'll say nothing at all. Except what I just said.

"Hundreds of edits?" That is a slanderous untruth.

Thank you, Ian.

Anybody watching: permission to treat the witness as hostile?

As long as you remain a Contributor in good standing, you are welcome to edit OSM in Santa Cruz or anywhere on Earth. However, when you violate (as I say in the changeset comments as to my source) "OSM conventions" (of not damaging existing and valid data, which is considered vandalism), then you are not welcome.

The damage was (at least, there may be more, as this list is not comprehensive) to Twin Lakes Neighborhood Park, commercial zone represented by way/41171135 and residential landuse way/41170853.

I see 97% or so of your edits are done with iD, perhaps you want to graduate to a less-beginner-oriented editor, one where you might be prone to make fewer mistakes after you've learned how to use it.

Hm, a protect_class key but no boundary=protected_area, that's not right. You could add boundary=protected area if you insist that the protect_class is correct (is it?) or you could add boundary=national_park and delete the protect_class key/value pair.

It would be good to stick to one consistent set of tags on state parks, like boundary=national_park on all of them. So, if you do this to Samuel P. Taylor State Park, it would be more correct to do so to all other state parks (like Mount Tam as well, in a different changeset).

Yes, thanks. These came from the once-in-a-blue-moon-I-have-to-redact-some-foolish-changesets by a mapper who is very good at putting (and keeping) his foot in his mouth. I think I've (also) deleted most or maybe all of these; I appreciate your assistance.

Weird last 24 hours with this guy, he stepped right into being a vandal and left us no choice but to delete his mess and clean it up with better data. Oh, well, the map around Live Oak was messy for the last day and today, but is quite a bit better now, though there may still be some stray noise from the brush fire that roared through here by the name of Adamant1. I'm glad it's over, but he says he "reported me to the DWG for edit-warring him." OK, I'm not worried.

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 imagery_used layers?

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

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at several 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.

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.