I appreciate that.

My sister went to SDSU, my father started KPBS-TV (Channel 15) there about 55 years ago. I have fond memories. Sail Bay was a lot of fun; all my friends were old enough (14) to get a SCUBA license, I was 13-3/4 that summer, so I learned to sail (instead).

That's fine, Minh. This was an "old-fashioned" way I used to do things (while trying to adhere to OSM's international status and being "more metric") rather than the "entrenched by inertia" (and hundreds of years of practice) of US railroads being firmly entrenched with SAE (non-metric) units.

I'm OK with railway=razed where that is a "more accurate" tag than railway=abandoned.

But yes, you can see how it is easy to reach a conclusion that "OSM conventions" are absolute, when, at least in the case of "old rail," it's less clear. This HAS led to contention (and appeared to have done so here, however briefly), but as we seem to be concluding, doesn't have to, as there are "somewhat better" tags to denote the often-rather-complex lifecycle of rail, which for decades or centuries, leave long-lasting effects on the land (in a cartographic sense). Thanks for your open-minded approach to this, that's a big help!

Yes, this route really should be here. (You asked).

An abandoned railway is quite often a "verifiable, present thing." Some have physical presence, some have very little or none. However, if you read our wiki, you'll discover that rail tends to leave very long-lasting influences on the landscape (sometimes for centuries) and the route, whether actual infrastructure (like embankments, tunnels, bridges, cuttings...) remain or not, the routes (even as you dismiss them as "historical") remain as important entities in the real world today.

No, you are going to leave these data in OSM, as they are part of a huge amount of railway=abandoned in both California (and Earth, too). OSM has been mapping these for decades and will continue to map these into the future, this is established precedent in our project.

See osm.wiki/California/Railroads, (specifically, osm.wiki/California/Railroads#Abandoned_lines) and similar states (in the USA, using various countries around the world...). Confirm for yourself that we who map such rail infrastructure are completely within well-established OSM practice and precedent.

Saying "I'm gonna give a week for comments..." (until you remove valid data?) is NOT well-established OSM practice. Especially as I (the author) have replied. So, thank you for notifying me of your intentions, but they are misguided. Please refer to our wiki on the topic of abandoned rail, as while it CAN be contentious, (it has a history of it, in fact), it doesn't have to be.

Nice!

It is also true that "someone might write some succinct wiki about this."

The value special_district fits into (what in the USA) are described as one of two "not-governments" by US Census bureau (which I've wiki-documented myself): true "governments" of state, county or county equivalent and city/town and two "others, not-governments" of "special district" and "school district." While the Bureau should not be what defines OSM tags, in this case it is useful to make exactly these distinctions of government and non-government boundaries. (In other cases where the US Census Bureau categorizes in specific ways, OSM is known to distinctly diverge).

Minh is being kind when he says "it would be a stretch:" Metro and special districts like it clearly are not subordinate or superior to the cities they serve (if indeed they serve "cities"). They are a different animal than a government, being tasked with an often narrow list of responsibilities (even as they are funded to do so; I fund my water district when I pay my water bill).

OSM deserves some well-written wiki about how we mean "special district." There indeed are special districts in the USA: COGs, Special Districts, MPOs, MPOs which are also other (sometimes many other) things...this is rich in its implementation yet we have not well expressed what their commonalities are; it appears there are some. Let's try to "categorize the special," as difficult a craft as that might seem — we certainly can do this. I encourage well-written wiki on this topic.

I am very supportive of the tag boundary=special_district in this case. I have postulated similar tagging before (using acronyms), though I like the "fully expressed" special_district value. It is appropriate and unambiguous.

tguen, "Metro" is not a de facto government and should not be tagged admin_level=7 (nor boundary=administrative). In fact, it is described in Wikipedia as a "planning organization" and indeed, OSM had this discussion (and came to the same conclusion here: osm.wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level#Consolidated_city-counties_beyond_a_single_county:_admin_level.3D5.3F over four years ago.

Such tagging on Metro needs at least far more discussion than a single person editing a "more friendly" wiki to include an MPO as admin_level=7 (I'll tell you straight up: it isn't!) and then asserting this tag on "Metro" around Portland.

Please remove the wiki entry and this tag on "Metro." You might tag it boundary=MPO but you can't tag it boundary=administrative (which is required for an admin_level tag), as it isn't a de facto administrative boundary, it is an MPO boundary. This means that any admin_level tag in incorrect.

There is also that pretty cool statewide "story map" that is noted in the wiki. It gives a good, rather pretty overview of Utah's (pending) USBRs.

Sometime "this summer," (June? July?) I'll make another talk-us post when I hear when these get approved — assuming they do, they all have so far, 100% of the time, but you never know if AASHTO will find some technical reason to reject them — hasn't happened yet, though.

I also appreciate you making the "full circle" of updating the wiki. That's really helpful when doing these. In fact, it's WAY more important to "get 'em in" (to OSM) than it is to mention so doing in the wiki, but the wiki does a pretty good job of "status reports," but only when people keep it updated with what's really in the map. Again, thanks.

Happy mapping!

Really nice work on all you have done so far on USBR 77. That's it: I simply want to thank and congratulate you on some great improvements to both OSM and the USBRS.

Haven't you got something else to do? (Even if it sounds a bit nasty)

There is an exception for SHAPE* keys.

Hello Georg. WHAT "unknown tags?" The tags on way/914890246 are documented on our county page, osm.wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California

The latter (semicolon converted to a comma-space) has been implemented on this and all other USMOI where there were semicolons. Thank you for the suggestion.

I did, and because of the way you stitched it into the super-relation, I didn't even have to update the wiki! (which links to the super). Thanks again!

Nice work, Russ! Thank you. I'll update our USBRS wiki.

New tagging looks great; thanks for updating my previous changes to be more accurate as of now, especially the name=* tag.

Please do make those changes; thank you in advance. I left the landuse=commercial tag here because of the "mixed use" I understood about the property as it was being developed. But now, I think the landuse=* tag should be removed altogether (on the building). I think the building should be tagged building=apartments, as that's what I understood the "Now Leasing" sign to offer. If there are "mixed uses" (including commercial activity) taking place here, I don't know of them. It is possible that the "parcel" polygon surrounding the building=apartments should be tagged landuse=residential, though this might "flip" to landuse=commercial if it is determined that some of the activity (ground floor units?) actually are commercial. But again, I don't know of any; it seems like apartments (only).

Mixed-use landuse poses us a conundrum: OSM forces us to choose one vs. the other. Another example locally are "family farms" which are "zoned" with a tag SCCGIS calls "RA" which means "residential-agricultural." (Both). Which do we choose when it is "both"? This property is kind of like that, so maybe we best tag the building as building=apartments, MAYBE we tag the parcel with landuse=commercial if there is commercial activity.

The name tag can be as a sign on the outside names it (and I haven't seen that in a while, if you know of a correct name, please do enter it into a name=* tag on the building). Again, thanks for reaching out, this one WAS a bit confusing!

relation/12032585 is in Santa CLARA county, not Santa CRUZ county. I allow its tags to remain, as someone else in another county edited those and seems to have coined their own version, which at least partly explains the different tags you see. Contact user_5359 and complain to him or her about that one.

The rest, I say thank you for the OT link. Yes, I did omit relations in my previous OT search but I have remedied two that needed fixing (way/857006736, way/673743413 and the rest are OK). Check the regular expression in your OT query: as of right now, the results it returns have correct tags.

Apologies, we need only one. Our Santa_Cruz_County,_California wiki documents that sccgis:shapestlen=* is the preferred key.

I made some minor changes in one area, but an Overpass Turbo search does not show any incidence of the others. If you do find these, please describe their way # in OSM.