They are from CPAD 2019b data, as documented on our Contributors and Santa_Cruz_County,_California wiki pages.

While I endeavor during these additions to remove all tags (except sometimes ACRES and usually UNIT_ID, so that we may compare between older CPAD, OSM versions and newer CPAD versions of the data), other tags (like the ones you mention) can and should be removed.

As the latter wiki mentions, "Sometimes tags from the shapefile in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS were left in the data when they do not logically map well to OSM tags. Where objectionable, these can be deleted."

I have been and do "better tag" on these. However, I don't see some stray tags finding their way into our map as a major problem. You are welcome to delete these, too. I appreciate you calling them to my attention.

CPAD data are under construction with the collaboration of other OSM volunteers in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. We're now on on our third version of these (2019b) and the UNIT_ID allows us to compare particular units. You have mentioned to me that ACRES can be computationally computed; our Santa Cruz County wiki states "Sometimes tags from the shapefile in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS were left in the data when they do not logically map well to OSM tags. Where objectionable, these can be deleted." I don't consider ACRES "a mistake," but you might.

Yup, that's how it's done. You're welcome and keep up the great work! (GL w/finals)

It's like bricks in a wall, you think you'll never count to a million or a billion, then you realize you have a million brothers and sisters. Voilà, an ever-better map!

All, right! Go, man, GO!

The rail elements in the route=light_rail are changed from railway=rail to railway=light_rail.

Despite the service being DMU instead of electric, everything about this says "light" rail instead of "heavy," (which would lead to a route=train for the passenger service, but it isn't, it is route=light_rail). The concomitant train=yes tags (on stations, transit centers, platforms) are now light_rail=yes

Now, finally, the question confronts us: do we change the elements of the Escondido Subdivision from railway=rail to railway=light_rail where applicable? Following the example of the San Diego Trolley's three infrastructure lines (Blue, Orange, Green, though there is also a Silver passenger route on these), I would say "yes, we should" make these changes.

It would be good to definitively know if/when there actually is any freight service on the Escondido Subdivision, the "Freight Bypass Tracks" and minor amount of freight-appearing rail just past the Escondido Transit Center notwithstanding.

I have changed relation/1371791 back to route=light_rail (from route=train). Everything I know and can find about this calls it a "light rail" and calling it a train (as in heavy rail) seems incorrect to me.

Wiki changes made yesterday were backed out (to re-reflect it is light_rail, not train). The "service=commuter" tag on the relation was deleted, as this key:value pair isn't wiki-documented and doesn't make sense in the better-established context of the "passenger=urban" tag (which does make sense and is wiki documented).

While the route is still PTv1, some platform elements (as in the richly-tagged Escondido Transit Center) do begin an ability for upgrading to a fully PTv2 route, but other intermediate platforms will need to be added to the map and this relation.

relation/6161003 (Escondido Subdivision) seems fine — it is even additionally stitched into local transit as a bus_route.

relation/1371791 (SPRINTER) was updated with the text of the change in the wiki. In short, this route=light_rail is now a route=train and is documented in the wiki as so. Keeping eyes open here, as this is a curious edge of California/Rail: the distinction between a light_rail and a train route.

I agree with your analysis and changes here. This has always been mildly confusing in my mind as to how DMU lines are best mapped, especially when the tracks are used for both a light_rail service (whether DMU or electric) AND there is also some freight on the line (as on San Diego Trolley's Orange line out to Santee and El Cajon, where there are "industrial rail customers" that use the same line the passenger trollies are on, but between 2:00 AM and 3:30 AM for their freight runs).

So, as I don't know if the SPRINTER tracks even ARE used for freight, (I don't think so, my nephew rides this line as a CSUSM student) that was my motivation: "light_rail only" made me change it. But you continue to do excellent work on rail, and if you have noticed that what I did is "incomplete" and that your newer tagging is how similar routes are mapped, then I defer to your more consistent tagging.

While realizing that the following questions mildly stray in the direction of tagging for the renderer, doesn't it seem that your style of tagging railway=rail instead of railway=light_rail would make an ORM rendering "disappear" that the tracks (as black, not green) are not readily apparent as passenger (light_rail) service? That's another motivation for me having changed it, not so much tagging for the renderer, but merely as an accurate way of seeing (say, California-wide) rail as a network and identifying where the light_rail passenger service is?

I'm still not sure which is "more correct," as I see both of our perspectives here, though I will defer to you setting it to railway=rail as we discuss this. Let's say there is no freight service here (maybe true, maybe not). Wouldn't the ORM tagging convention of "the highest or heaviest service on the line" (i.e. passenger service being "more important" than freight) suggest that light_rail "win out" over rail? We really could go either way here.

Thanks for noticing and your very polite note here! I encourage further discussion, or you might simply leave your changes as is without further discussion, though I would appreciate an answer as to the above questions.

Please cite some California law (Code, chapter, section, paragraph) which describes this "barring," please.

My apologies if it seems I shower you with endless compliments, especially recently. However, those woodland areas are simply stunningly pretty and beautifully rendered. Thank you.

You are welcome.

Look sharp, map smart, be nice, learn much.

Map well! (Ask, read wiki, be nice, stand tall...)

I haven't had a chance to look at everything comprehensively here, but thank you very much for what appears to be substantial and awesome work!

I fixed it.

Look, if you are going to edit OSM around UCSC, that's fine, as long as you don't destroy existing valid data. Please be careful, read wiki or ask (me, others, our forum, the talk pages...) if you don't understand something.

So, you've broken the wood polygon for the Pogonip. How are you going to fix that?

Thanks. This has been rather complicated for at least a decade, and it may change. Not everybody reads the county wiki, so it's easy to miss.

The root of this is how people tag differently for "landuse" (as the university is) vs. "landcover" (like wood, grass, scrub...). It is complex and has become exacerbated by what people can see in increasingly technically-better aerial / satellite imagery.

The renderers have tried to keep up with multiple -use -cover "conflicts," and again, "it is complex."

I think this / these issues are slowly beginning to resolve themselves, but the local convention at UCSC does make for a "prettier" campus (for now). In the future, there may be some wider consensus hammered out which most agree is both pretty and accurate (to that future day's tagging standards). Meantime, we sort of smear the truth a little bit. Thanks for your understanding and you are perfectly welcome to contribute additional strategies to the map or the wiki.

I like your other three new edits, but this one seems off to me. If this were a place where (team) sports are played, or perhaps were a dedicated hacky-sack court, maybe. But it is primarily a pedestrian plaza, which is how it was marked.

I ask you politely to remove the landuse=recreation ground tag, please.

Hooray: I like the way that we (you, I, others...) are better "blending" both landuse= (residential, forest...) and natural=wood (scrub, grassland...) together. Sometimes these overlap, and that's OK!

I'm doing similar things in Santa Cruz County by "uncoupling" some quite-old tagging customs here (from older imports), sometimes this means untangling "park" (and its relatives) from how we tagged here. It is going well.

Thanks for your good work, good collaboration and good dialog along the way!

Why would you change this to a leisure=recreation_ground? That's not correct at all, it is a landuse=residential.

I'll fix this, but I'd like your reply, even if it simply says, "oops, yes, you're correct, I made a mistake here."