I'm an alumnus and local, though specifically remember this from decades ago. It is entirely possible this got changed in 40+ years and the comma is truly present. If all other campuses include a comma, that is hefty support UCSC should, too.

Though, your link points to the mailing address, not the official name. I do recall learning quite specifically "there is no comma" but that was in the '80s.

Can we find a more official source online? Or, I can call the switchboard tomorrow morning and ask. Shouldn't be too hard to find out for sure, but there remains some question in my mind.

I'd like to "mildly disagree" with you regarding changing tags on segments named "Construction Package 1" from "construction:*" to "proposed:*".

While it's true that you might not see typical construction activity (cranes, heavy equipment, materiel, workers...) on these segments (about 22 km of line), these are still "active" construction zones: they are under contract by construction firms, at ground-level on the right-of-way the earth has been cleared by grading equipment and similar.

Please change the proposed:* tags (like proposed:voltage, proposed:railway...) back to construction:* for two reasons: 1), the tags do not match the railway=construction tag already extant on these tags (so, all should be construction:* to match), and 2), these segments really are a construction zone; these segments are much farther along the construction process than "proposed," they imminently await actual materiel and construction activity in these construction zones (scheduled to complete as part of Construction Package 1 in Summer of 2025). Thank you.

Really nice work; thanks!

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.