I knew this as Redwood Creek from the 1990s as the friends/schoolmate of my son who lived near the end of this (and it was always remote and I knew at the time that there were many Redwood Creek's as names of things, like roads, around the County at the time).

I don't know where it started, they spoke Korean, but still called it "at the end of the dirt road up Redwood Creek. Living about 1 km away, I knew where this was, and as they said Redwood, I said Redwood.

If you are a local and say it is Boomer, I nod my head and say apparently, "you (or someone you know) live here." So, Boomer it is.

👍

It may also be possible this needs a fourth revision. If you (willkmis) believe there is a tagging scheme (with the nodes, the ways, the suburb and the relation) superior to the way I have done it currently, you are welcome to improve it from here. And perhaps we can all learn something about the best way to tag such entities.

It is getting better in (southern, especially) California on how to "do these" (census tracts, which are non-administrative, cities and towns, which are, small towns/villages/hamlets which are unincorporated and have no boundary and are best mapped with a node...). Maybe we aren't "all perfectly correct" today, but it is getting better.

Yes, I messed this up FURTHER after it was messed up to begin with. Mahogany Hills is now a place=suburb (as it is within Murrieta's city limits) and Murrieta is now correct, I believe. Some subtle tagging required, and if we don't get it correct in two steps, how about three?!

Thanks for catching this and calling it to my attention.

Yes, I believe that is true using a particular editor, and it's quite possible I wasn't or don't often use that particular editor. Especially when I'm deleting / redacting (noise, bad data), I'm often more careful not to delete everything, or I "delete overcautiously" which could explain what happened here.

Nonetheless, between the two of us, we got it cleaned up, so again, thanks.

Sometimes when I was a boy I'd sweep the garage and my father said "you missed a spot." And he was right.

Is there something specific you like me to do or have you completed the task to mutual satisfaction?

Thanks for all you do!

Fixed

I have corrected elements in this changeset so they are even more correct than they were before this vandal took them out. And, DWG has slapped a block on user:xx.xa.

Thanks for good teamwork everyone, arvdk and DWG alike.

Good teamwork, everybody. Especially DWG members.

Thanks, Graeme: that was the "biggie." I've "been workin' on the railroad" (in Alaska, USA) and I'll double-check that the relation of the branch rail that xx..xa deleted is still OK after your Revert.

Yup, just checked it...it's OK. It's got your name on it as the last edited, but it's OK.

Thanks for the update, Marc. Your block "sounds about right" (to me).

Speaking personally (the data this user damaged which I entered), I have reverted changeset/133144928, which I emailed DWG about circa five minutes ago.

"Good save." A tip of my hat to the "blue stars" of DWG, and G'day, sir.

DWG notified by me as well.

DWG has been notified.

Thank you for noticing and contacting me. What this new user:xxxxxxxxxxxxxa is doing is not OK. While I haven't done so yet, I plan on redacting the changeset so the Port Mackenzie Rail Extension is restored and notifying the DWG to keep an eye open for this potential or actual Vandalism offender.

This user:xxxxxxxxxxxxxa is out of control. Let's notify the DWG.

You and OSM are welcome. In Hungarian "köszönjük (nekünk)" which is "thanks to us." I like your call on the other node. I'm smiling, I'm nodding, a wave and a handshake from here.

OK, the "tag migration" and node deletion) inside of the city limits of San Diego is done (changeset/133061971).

As for the other node near Cottonwood, if you were to change its name to Jamacho, I would nod my head.

So, this node, here, gets wrapped around the landuse=residential polygon, which is trimmed to fit into its corner of the San Diego city limit, excluding Lemon Grove areas. I think that's right.

What I don't know about is the "other" Jamacha node, over by Steele Canyon / Cottonwood.

This whole thing is a mess, as you've obviously read the wikipedia article that talk about this being partitioned out of alleged confusion from the 19th century.

I think the node near Steele Canyon is "another" thing, a "place" which is called Jamacha, or maybe Jamacho.

We should do our best to get this as clearly-tagged as we can, although, obviously, there are challenges. Glad to see we agree on "migrating the tags," I'll do that.

If you want to discuss about "the other node," we could here.

We crossed each other.

Um, yeah, now that you mention it, this is "a corner of" (a pretty complex one!) of that Mexican land grant. The name gets mangled a lot.

I was once talking to a "411" operator and I almost knew the address she was going to give me was on Jamacha (pronounced in my ear as "hamma-shaw") Road and she gave me the digits of the address and there was a long pause and I could hear her brain gears turning but it was only silence. I said "I think it is pronounced hamma-shaw, but it is spelled with a J."

YES! She screamed into my earhole with joy.

Yes, the "something different" is the residential area (now in OSM), I think it should have the tags of the node named Jamacha, as it is a "neighborhood of San Diego, roughly cut with this landuse=residential, which now contains tags identifying it as such."

And this can wobble, too, but maybe these get an admin_level=10 tag (below San Diego's admin_level=8), but you have to be a certain tall of height to ride that ride. One thing at a time.

Someday this might blob into really accurate little blobs of suburbia with a surrounding polygon that exists about now/today, but it'll then get place=neighborhood with name=Jamacha on it.

Could take years, but that's OSM.

Mind if I "draw a fresher edge" around here? Really, I think 10 minutes of "I got this" would be it.