I believe I fixed this with barrier=ditch

Fantastic work, Micah, thank you!

(No @ before my name, that's OK). Wow, thanks for the quick reply!

Yes, as I said, it looks much better around central campus and has been improving recently — now I know you've been one of the busy ones fixing "bad offsets" and a whole bunch of confusing skew on a lot of campus buildings and roads. Good to hear the alignment issues will be "knit together" with downtown and wider areas, that seems quite correct.

I'll keep an eye on relations and other issues: many hands make light work. The map "fabric" crowdsourced by many more than one set of eyes makes it all work and work well!

In short: looking great!

I have been frustrated by over ten years of imagery alignment difficulties in OSM around UCSC. Realizing how careful and tedious this work must have been for you to complete, I wanted to thank you for your care to finish it. Zooming in recently around both Red Square and Theater Arts, I've never seen the alignment look so spot-on. Thank you!

AGAIN, SORRY! My mistake, my edit, not yours. It looks like somehow a tag of ACRES got changed to "foot" with the same value. Fixing, though I suppose it could be deleted and computed.

Sorry, I meant relation/7070301, not way; my mistake.

Yes, I meant to ask what is the foot=* tag here? I'm familiar with this being used as an access=foot value, but not as a tag with a numerical value. Thanks.

Nice chatting with you.

I appreciate that you took the time to type all that, even the snark about California.

I have not had "prolonged edit wars," that is a false characterization on your part and looks a lot like you casting the first stone.

Whether something is at v1 or not matters not. Somebody has to enter data the first time.

Good to hear that as some loose-cannon user is making a mess, you are on the hunt.

Scripts, bots, both are "automated edits" and your distinctions are awry, largely meaningless.

"You have no idea why I'd get notification" is no excuse for either lack of acknowledgement that I did, or taking responsibility that it was your changeset (via automated edit scripts) that caused it to happen.

This does sound like it can be swept away as a simple misunderstanding, of which I firmly place onus of responsibility squarely on your shoulders. While I appreciate that you are trying to limit damage or vandalism by an as-yet-unnamed perpetrator, you look like one yourself when your countermeasures produce unintended and unpleasant results.

Please be more careful with your automated edits in the future. If you don't understand what the tools you are using do, including unintended consequences, I (and other members of the community) prefer you not use them.

Your "not sure" is likely because you haven't read the History of the node.

It appears (I do believe this but I could be slightly mistaken) that I entered FIXME tags which get 'bot corrected to fixme and somehow your bot gets involved as "something you edited" (as did I, or I entered a FIXME).

It's not gigantic, it's annoying, it's "like" an alarm going off (when it doesn't need to) as it's a mechanical ping-pong between FIXME and fixme and FIXME and your bot notices and I get notified because I'm in the edit history.

I am editing in Hawaii as I help user:ZeLonewolf with admin_level, place, census polygon tagging on Oahu as he was importing census and we've been sort of tight the last few days off-list (so you wouldn't know that) after being public on talk-imports for a few weeks. I don't expect you to know that either but it has been public and our database is so open you could look at histories or read a talk-page or click the History tag as it keeps all of us better informed.

I hear you when you say "not so easy" and I appreciate whatever efforts you expend to pour a little cool water on your 'bots, thanks in advance for those efforts. Yes, it is the edit trails where we overlap where such triggers go off, now I hope you have a better idea how to quiet it down. Cheers.

Seems your 'bot is overzealous, freebeer.
Your "revert undiscussed automated retagging of objects where I prevented reasons to keep existing tagging" statement, especially when issued by a 'bot, is hyperbolic hubris.

This started because it appeared a place=suburb tag is proposed to be deleted because it seems TFTR and then a FIXME becoming a fixme tag triggered this very wide-area 'bot-slap. I don't need such alarms going off in my face, so please adjust both attitude and code accordingly.

If that sounds impolite, please know I only want to go to "stern," not impolite.

OSM community: I once again apologize to you for this spectacle and the difficulty I faced in dealing with it. I will strive to continue to do my best in facing these (hopefully rare) frictions as they occur should they rear their ugly head in the future. And may it never happen to you or your OSM fellow volunteer contributors. If it does, I only ask that you do your best to identify bad behavior as you see it and point it out to the greater community with aplomb and civility.

I did not contact the individual known as Adamant1 as he said I did above; that is yet another of his untruths. I did state in this public place that he private-messaged me after being warned — an hour before by an administrator who blocked him as well as by me (at least a dozen times) — to (yet again) NOT CONTACT ME. I, stevea, consider such continuing behavior by the individual known as Adamant1 as criminal electronic harassment under California Penal Code §653.2 and §646.9. "No" means "no." Civil remedies are available to me as well. This is not "playing victim," it is black-letter law. My experience of harassment is real, the damages to my reputation and OSM are real. If anyone wishes to now characterize me as "whistleblowing," that's fine with me.

The perpetrator keeps saying "I won't be responding..." yet he keeps responding. Make of that what you will, OSM community. There was not "zero reason" for me to comment, we were just told to avoid contact, yet Adam back-channeled both of us (keeping his words in the dark from each other and the community). It should be obvious to all what his "partitioning" does here; nothing more need be said about it.

I have no idea why things aren't clear to Adam. Things are crystal-clear to me: my four-word reply to woodpeck said "Sounds about right, thanks."

Less talk; more mapping. Map. Map well.

"anybody would BE able to understand."

Adamant1 just contacted me via private message after being told many many many times that this is unwelcome, yet he persists in doing so. He appears to be trying to "do something" by this (and keeping it private) after above he immediately asked to do this (keep it private) with woodpeck. I find this disingenuous at best and downright deceitful at worst.

As I have said many times, and as Open is our first name: this sort of dispute does not end well by being spoken about in hushed tones behind everybody's back. It only benefits by being spoken about in the open.

Let's keep any discussion with full candor in the open, please. What woodpeck wrote was unambiguous, as clear as crystal to me; it seems anybody would able to understand.

I'd say to ask it in the open and it would be better.

The suggestion to stick to mapping Adam already knows is intended to give him a positive path towards productive mapping, should he choose to take it. It is precisely crafted to BE civil. It was/is not meant as an attack, though it may qualify as damning him with faint praise.

Whether Adam and I "disagree" about how something should or shouldn't be tagged is a red herring, a trick magicians and deceivers use to misdirect attention. The real issue here is that Adam spectacularly failed in any ability to discuss in a civil matter the matter of park:type (a wiki he started): opportunity HE squandered. He fouled that discussion miserably with virtually constant abusive invective, then when he uninvited himself from further discussion (which he appears to be unable to do constructively), he targeted my recent improvements to Public Lands tagging to "remove park:type tags ANYWAY, be DAMNED the fact there is an active Discussion going on." This, in the wiki Adam himself started, then fouled. Then he trails my map edits and tosses me a middle finger that he'll edit the map any old way he wants? That's so clearly disrespectful of our map I don't need to say anything further about it. Yet that's what happened here.

I am not arguing. I am pointing to Adam's behavior and calling it what it is. I don't like this (at all) and ask for relief from the DWG and other higher-ups in OSM from Adam's near-constant abuse, slander, invective, untruths, exaggerations, mischaracterizations and most important of all, pollution of data in our map with not only bad data, but very bad acts on how to reach civil agreement about how GOOD edits in our map SHOULD happen.

I have offered and continue to offer a gentlemanly approach, I believe others see that and see Adam's behavior for what it is. Let the chips fall where they may, and soon please, as I'm certain the entire community is completely fed up with Adam's burn-it-all-to-the-ground approach to virtually everything he says and does. That isn't hyperbole, go look up Adam's activities for yourself. It makes me grateful we are an Open project, as I have nothing to hide.

(And yet, Adam DID do "this crap" with OSM, even as he simultaneously says "I'm not.") It is easy to be confused by Adam's "say one thing, do another" behavior. I have now seen it so often and so persistently by him that to me, it seems deliberate on his part, or if it isn't it deliberate, it doesn't appear it is something he is able to control. Either way, "say one thing, then do another" is behavior OSM shouldn't tolerate. Especially when coupled with vulgarities and inflammatory language (as in Adam's post above).

Disagreeing with edits, or calling somebody out when they say they won't do something, (then they do exactly the opposite), isn't "going off," (more exaggeration on Adam's part) it is being reasonable about somebody who does not appear to be able to abide by the tenets of OSM: namely, asking somebody not to do something he said he wouldn't do after he (repeatedly) uninvited himself from participation. This "what I can't seem to do in the wiki I'll do by tracking Steve's edits and botch them with still-under-construction-consensus tagging — regardless that the greater community continues to discuss these issues." That is not being simply "selfish" with "my edits," that is being a bad actor in a community where we SHARE the good development of a map database. It is that plain, it is that simple. The facts speak for themselves. Running away from the bright light of truth being shined in Adam's direction might have worked for a time, but the community sees Adam for what he is.

OSM is an OPEN project. Any contributor who has an expectation to "have their edits left alone" is participating in the wrong project. OSM is "map well" and standing by (perhaps being a bit proud of) your contributions. OSM is NOT about making every edit/subject/topic/comment/wiki post an "I'm right, you're wrong" contest, as is Adam's habit.

I have never threatened Adam; this is another slanderous untruth on his part. I have personally and directly warned Adam (as I should) not to slander me with hyperbole in his remarks (which he just did by saying I threatened him — it is plain for all to see that I haven't). His remarks often directly contradict what I (and even he himself) have recently said, even in the same thread, so it is easy to prove that Adam is the one who exaggerates, stretching to the breaking point the words of others so far out of context that they bend and break as yet another untruth told by Adam. Or even slander: "a false statement damaging to a person's reputation." I (and any reasonable person would) tire of Adam's repeated (and provably so) slanderous exaggerations. That isn't a threat, that is simply saying what happened: should you have the buckets of patience required to follow Adam's repeated, sad acts, you can easily make that determination for yourself, dear reader.

With patience and a polite tone, I will continue to "call out" Adam's less-than-positive-contributions to OSM as I see them, as I should, as any other contributor to the project should. Eventually, after months and years of Adam's repeated abusive, impolite, harshly critical and seldom constructive, insulting, self-contradictory behavior to and at (almost never "with") me and other well-meaning volunteers in this project, the greater OSM community more and more clearly sees Adam for what he is: a deeply disruptive influence here. While he might make positive contributions (drawing dirt tracks and marking fence lines), he has effectively written himself out of meaningful contributions with regard to parks, park:type and public lands, especially as the consensus in those topic is fragile and continues to emerge. Simply put, Adam can't make or have constructive dialog about these topics (he has proven that over and over again — see park:type:Talk). So, how can he be expected to make good map edits about them?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out the bad (abusive, insulting, inflammatory, slanderous...) acts of others in this project, especially as I and others strive mightily to do so factually, while maintaining a polite tone and proper decorum as we do so. (Though, truly, I distinctly TIRE of it). I apologize to the greater community that somebody has to keep doing this over and over again. On the bright side, there are longer-term solutions to bad actors and disruptive influences in OSM.

park:type is a wiki ( park:type=* ) Adamant1 himself started, about which HE made contributions to in a table IN that wiki showing, at least initially, that he made some good-faith efforts to reach better consensus to facilitate deprecating the tag. Then, after horrific behavior (petty complaints about wiki syntax, adding contradictory and nonsensical statements to the Page, deleting / censoring / obscuring his bad words and acts into an Archive, introducing the further confusion of his own mistakes and misunderstanding of what was intended to be a helpful concept / talking point, trying to shut down the conversation by stating "more discussion and explanation would convolute things needlessly"...and more!) Adam spectacularly failed to respond well to the (v1 or, after his mess, v2) proposal to go about this in a conciliatory, community-oriented, open fashion so that we may be (politely) systematic in how we deprecate this tag.

Moreover, MULTIPLE TIMES (in the Talk page of that wiki) Adam HIMSELF said "I'm done" (with the process of contributing to efforts to deprecate / systematically remove this tag).

Yet, here, Adam blithely removes the tag (as he did in other changesets in the same day, all tracking my recent edits), doing an end-run around HIS OWN declaration that he is "done" with fixing, correcting or even discussing what is to be done with this flavor of tagging (park:type). He even says why in his changeset comment, for which I offer him thanks, even as I am not thankful for Adam's antagonistic and self-contradictory behavior as he distinctly harasses me.

I don't believe Adam's deletion of park:type tags is a way forward. I ask that if Adam is a man of his word, that he KEEP his word and actually BE "done" with anything having to do with this tag (by his own declaration, and more than once): no more contributions to the park:type wiki (or its Talk page), no more edits having to do with park:type. Adam himself said he would do this, doing a Very Fine Job of uninviting himself from these contributions, then a few days later makes an edit like this, contradicting himself and violating his word that he is "done." I find these actions on a spectrum of unwelcome to downright hostile toward OSM and its tenet of good behavior.

Adam, to be clear: please make no further edits to park:type tags, just as you said you wouldn't in the wiki you started (then fouled with your atrocious behavior). The v2 proposal there and other structured "park" and "public lands" tagging (e.g. osm.wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands#State_Public_Lands ) are well underway with multiple Contributors, grow nicely in directions of community consensus, data research, collaboration and resulting improvements in the map. We have grown from one to three states there in the last week and there is discussion of another Contributor soon adding a fourth.

As Adam has stated multiple times "I'm not going to be involved in it. That's for sure" about participating in these improvements in our map's (park) data, I ask simply that Adam be a man of his word and not make edits like this (see also changesets 71745756, 71745750, 71745746, 71745712), undermining his very own words he would not do so. It is transparent to me that Adam tracking my edits and removing tags I have purposefully left in the map because there is an ongoing Discussion in a wiki (again, which Adam himself started) is disingenuous, antagonistic behavior which Adam seems unable to resist even after he has said "I'm done" and "I'm not going to be involved" (in park tagging, park:type tagging or related activity).

Perhaps sticking to fence lines and "adding stuff" is more Adam's kind of mapping.

Thanks for the restoration.

You removed the park:type tag WITHOUT the concomitant self-inflicted request that we discuss removing the tags in leisure=park?

This violates not only good community standards of "discuss removing tags as we say we will first, BEFORE we do so" but it also violates YOUR OWN REQUEST from only three days ago that we HAVE this discussion!

This is deliberately confusing, self-contradictory, violates good tenets of OSM, and appears to be inflammatory!