Here's what I consider. I might trim the existing landuse=residential so it more accurately fits the "up to the edge of the San Diego City Limit" and migrate tags from this node to that polygon.

I might add in a second landuse=residential polygon just to the north (what got trimmed out as part of Lemon Grove), what's Lansing Drive north, around Montgomery Heights Elementary, effectively "seeding" landuse=residential polygon(ization) onto an edge of Lemon Grove. It would have a fixme=* tag of "grows north towards Alton, Mount Vernon and Palm and west towards Lemon Grove Avenue").

We're going from chalk points to watercolor lines. Sounds about right.

Do offer you opinion on this, as It looks to me like a fun 5-10 minute edit, a little chewy, a little crunchy. Nice to get an edge a bit feathered better.

I think Jamacho is "something" and may be a real place-name while also specifying something I recall from fifty-something years ago in my childhood with that as the name of the place, even though the road ends in an a. I/we nearly always SAID it ending with an A because we were talking about the road, but I heard it with ending with an O, but rarely, as in "that place" (somewhat different than "the road with a similar name").

So, yeah, I think "ending in O" is a real thing. It's very hard (for me) to say more precisely than I have as to where.

What this node seems to be describing is a "neighborhood" of San Diego (with a name ending in A, likely because the road nearby is also so named). Like a puzzle piece bumped up against Lemon Grove and all kinds of history, it is "rather vague" though I suppose with care it's exact, oddly-shaped limits could be delineated.

But as it was hard enough to "place" a node for San Carlos (and I grew up there!) along with "what's Navajo? (as a neighborhood)" and having to figure all of that out.

This is a "neighborhood corner of the incorporated City of San Diego." It already seems to have a surrounding landuse=residential for either "it" or "roughly" or "one lobe" of "it." Centering its node around the intersection of Jamacha Road and Meadowbrook Drive, or a bit futher east towards Cardiff, but not "Skyline" because of the canyon south of Jamacha Road as an edge between the two.

It's really hard to translate "feeling about the center of a blobby-shaped corner neighborhood" into a well-centered single node.

San Diego might also consider what some places do, put a name=* tag on the surrounding landuse=residential. That's a sort of "rough cut first draft" that isn't totally wrong, but I live in a city where these get refined down to exclude streets and other non-residential as "lots of smaller, accurate residential nuggets" and then the "wide area" polygon that used to be landuse=residential becomes place=neighborhood. It's slow and deliberate, but it seems to be working.

Washington, DC is also converting from "node based neighborhoods" to the tags from the node being migrated to accurate polygons around each neighborhood, one by one. Tedious, but the work gets done as it must.

We're going from step 1A to 1B (a vague node to a "better-centered" node). Going to step 2 where it's all blobby-nice and refined to two levels of precise OSM tagging already specified, well, we have a ways to go.

The fact that Meadowbrook connects to Skyline is how "Jamacha" ties together in my mind. So, from Meadowbrook Drive (as the connection to Skyline, to knit together south) "further West" on Jamacha Road, past its terminus named that, onto Lisbon Street for that westerly bit that you care connected to the park and school, yeah, that's a nugget called Jamacha, I believe.

The residential area to the north and east (Woodrow, Canton, Montgomery Heights Elementary, up to edges of Lemon Grove, certainly. Where a Jamacha node is "best centered" is tricky. You might pull it a bit east towards Cardiff. I'm not a historian, rather a mapper who grew up near here.

In my mind this is a "I'd ask somebody who goes to Mount Miguel to best say where Jamacha actually is." If you want to "center the push-pin node" yeah.

I can see this being a wobbler of sorts.

I don't recall "exactly" although the answer is partly from my childhood a half-century ago. Dropping a pin on a nearly blank placemat was a bit difficult even six years ago, it was "sparse" here.

Because it was a rough guess, I'd agree with you if it were to move SSW by ~425 meters. That makes it sort of vague and around the power lines and diagonals. It's vague now in my mind and if you think it wanders to somewhere else, well, please march it forward to a better place.

You don't have to answer this, but why wouldn't my suggested location be better? (And I get it, this needs a more accurate location).

Maybe it "looks nicer" if it is centered just south of the intersection of Lisbon and Woodrow, where Keiller Park playground area is nearby.

So, if you'd like to fix things as adjustments, go for it. Better, newer knowledge / data are best.

(Oops, colons : not _ underscores). So, tiger:reviewed=no gets deleted when you're confident you've "cleaned up TIGER errors."

I've seen tiger:reviewed=yes and even tiger:reviewed=aerial and others, just delete it "when you're confident you've corrected TIGER errors."

The remaining TIGER tags are ongoing discussion fodder in Discourse; see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tiger-cleanup-tags/8228/27 .

If you are confident in your corrections to TIGER roads, simply delete the tiger_reviewed=no tag, don't set it to (the superfluous) tiger_reviewed=yes tag.

Slowly but surely, Santa Cruz County is looking better and better and better w.r.t. TIGER Review. Thanks for your improvements!

Nice! Thanks for entering / tagging these.

OK, those four (and their environs) now have what-I-believe-is-correct motorway_link tagging, not trunk_link tagging. Again, thank you.

Let's pause for a moment re "bicycle tagging on freeways." That's a larger topic and I neither want to get "lost in the weeds" (of this specific changeset) nor lose the "big picture" focus (for entire states like Idaho and Wyoming.

No apologies necessary, we're both clearly in good-faith comm together here.

Yes, those trunk_links do appear "just plain wrong." Please allow me a few minutes to fix those; thanks for the heads-up and identifying those for me; so kind of you.

Yup, we're skipping over each other.

I'm all ears about things like Begin Freeway and/or End Freeway signs (you say at Wagner road but not which direction is what). I mean, if you were clear about exactly where Caltrans has placed signs about "Limited access freeway" and/or Begin/End Freeway on 58 from the traffic_signals at W Main (Lenwood) to the Kern-SB line, hey, that's awesome data for OSM to absorb.

I think we are agreeing to agree. It does remain "somewhat unclear" — better stated is likely "inconsistently applied in OSM in California" where these "bicycles on freeways" are allowed. For example, even further west (on 58) towards Bakersfield, there are "patchy" instances of what is meant by our tagging w.r.t. whether bicycles are allowed.

I think that what's happening right now (especially with the "trunk / expressway" changes that have been ongoing in the USA since 2020 or so) is these edges are getting more clearly identified. "And fixed" is somewhere between "chalk line" and "wet watercolor" right about now.

We're figuring this out, it's a bit of "wet paint." I think we're making progress, both in the map, and talking about it, like here. Thanks for good, open dialog.

While this might "appear to be" what OSM calls motorway (freeway in "what the locals might call it") it is technically an expressway that allows bicycles, and so cannot legally be a "freeway" as California defines one. This means "really must not be tagged motorway" (even if some think that's what it feels like).

I know, it cracks a lot of people's heads open, too, not just yours and mine. But in a technical sense, that's all true. So OSM tags as it does. And renderers and routers and fact-checkers all work and nod our heads together. It all wraps up like this, but it can be a head-scratcher to get there. But lots of nodding right now the way it is.

To be clear, bicycles are allowed on SR 58 west of CR 66 (West Main Street Lenwood) all the way west on SR 58 to (and beyond) US 395. How far west? To the Kern-San Bernardino County Line. Caltrans says so.

It's not random at all. It is a deliberate building of specific tagging because bicycles are allowed through here explicitly.

What you say about what "Streetview shows" is unclear: WHICH state-recognized freeway portions, WHICH "first at-grade intersections with the freeway terminus signs." You leave out a lot here.

Some may consider this is "a lot of road" (all at once). It is part of a deliberate route (a USBR) for bicycles that Caltrans is developing.

The tagging is deliberate, stable and accurate exactly as it is. Well, at least until you are more specific about "what Streetview shows." I'm happy to listen about that, but your edges are unclear.

In an interest to "prompt" what I think might be the best effort forward here, I have (already) made the correction to fire_district.

I'm not sure what you mean by "data for CALFire is not compatible with the OSM one," so if you could clarify that, I'd appreciate your take on this. I believe the data ARE "compatible" with OSM, so I have left them in, but I did change the boundary key's value, as it certainly isn't admin_level.

Also, I'm sure there are an entire state-of-California's-worth of these (multi)polygons, so let's keep an eye on others entering or being in OSM, as we'll want them to have a consistent set of tags. That might be boundary=fire_district, it might be something else, but I think being in "listening mode" about that from our greater community is correct right now.

OK, I do have such knowledge: the tag admin_level=5 (or of any value) is 100% incorrect, as is the tag boundary=administrative. You could coin something like boundary=fire_district, but no CALFire boundary should ever be tagged with boundary=administrative. These will be redacted as they are found, so please don't do this in the future.

Really nice work here, Minh! I appreciate your research and mapping a great deal. Long ago, I added the locality node of the same name, you've made it a real place!

Again, thanks. It's good to see a familiar name in it for the long-haul. Happy mapping, fist-bump, see ya on the taggings ahead. I might not always keep things synced, though I offer my best.

Metro is on a tear, especially with what feels like "a sprint to the Olympics." There will be some busy re-tagging around here. I'm already feeling it with Arrow. OC Streetcar is around the corner and so is a great deal more.

Serious infrastructure building going on.

Good to know. They've been playing around with this morphology and it makes sense they'd break away with Pink. I once read Metro considers colors "secondary" route markers.

Whoops, yeah, thanks, the platforms...the platforms.

Good thing we're a team.

This (K and C) are kinda goopy, I'm looking at it still like if it needs a bandage until the next change, as there will be along here.