park:type is a wiki ( park:type=* ) Adamant1 himself started, about which HE made contributions to in a table IN that wiki showing, at least initially, that he made some good-faith efforts to reach better consensus to facilitate deprecating the tag. Then, after horrific behavior (petty complaints about wiki syntax, adding contradictory and nonsensical statements to the Page, deleting / censoring / obscuring his bad words and acts into an Archive, introducing the further confusion of his own mistakes and misunderstanding of what was intended to be a helpful concept / talking point, trying to shut down the conversation by stating "more discussion and explanation would convolute things needlessly"...and more!) Adam spectacularly failed to respond well to the (v1 or, after his mess, v2) proposal to go about this in a conciliatory, community-oriented, open fashion so that we may be (politely) systematic in how we deprecate this tag.

Moreover, MULTIPLE TIMES (in the Talk page of that wiki) Adam HIMSELF said "I'm done" (with the process of contributing to efforts to deprecate / systematically remove this tag).

Yet, here, Adam blithely removes the tag (as he did in other changesets in the same day, all tracking my recent edits), doing an end-run around HIS OWN declaration that he is "done" with fixing, correcting or even discussing what is to be done with this flavor of tagging (park:type). He even says why in his changeset comment, for which I offer him thanks, even as I am not thankful for Adam's antagonistic and self-contradictory behavior as he distinctly harasses me.

I don't believe Adam's deletion of park:type tags is a way forward. I ask that if Adam is a man of his word, that he KEEP his word and actually BE "done" with anything having to do with this tag (by his own declaration, and more than once): no more contributions to the park:type wiki (or its Talk page), no more edits having to do with park:type. Adam himself said he would do this, doing a Very Fine Job of uninviting himself from these contributions, then a few days later makes an edit like this, contradicting himself and violating his word that he is "done." I find these actions on a spectrum of unwelcome to downright hostile toward OSM and its tenet of good behavior.

Adam, to be clear: please make no further edits to park:type tags, just as you said you wouldn't in the wiki you started (then fouled with your atrocious behavior). The v2 proposal there and other structured "park" and "public lands" tagging (e.g. osm.wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands#State_Public_Lands ) are well underway with multiple Contributors, grow nicely in directions of community consensus, data research, collaboration and resulting improvements in the map. We have grown from one to three states there in the last week and there is discussion of another Contributor soon adding a fourth.

As Adam has stated multiple times "I'm not going to be involved in it. That's for sure" about participating in these improvements in our map's (park) data, I ask simply that Adam be a man of his word and not make edits like this (see also changesets 71745756, 71745750, 71745746, 71745712), undermining his very own words he would not do so. It is transparent to me that Adam tracking my edits and removing tags I have purposefully left in the map because there is an ongoing Discussion in a wiki (again, which Adam himself started) is disingenuous, antagonistic behavior which Adam seems unable to resist even after he has said "I'm done" and "I'm not going to be involved" (in park tagging, park:type tagging or related activity).

Perhaps sticking to fence lines and "adding stuff" is more Adam's kind of mapping.

Thanks for the restoration.

You removed the park:type tag WITHOUT the concomitant self-inflicted request that we discuss removing the tags in leisure=park?

This violates not only good community standards of "discuss removing tags as we say we will first, BEFORE we do so" but it also violates YOUR OWN REQUEST from only three days ago that we HAVE this discussion!

This is deliberately confusing, self-contradictory, violates good tenets of OSM, and appears to be inflammatory!

It's called a park, it has facilities like a park, it seems like a park to me. I ask you to please restore the leisure=park tag.

BTW, just three days ago here osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dpark#Park_type , Adamant1 said "Both SteveA and I have edited a park:type page to expand further expand on the tagging scheme and to better explain its depreciation in light of better tagging options. It would be good if further discussion goes happens on it's talk page." That is a direct quote.

Take your own advice from 72 hours ago, please, Adam?

These are not "clearly" wrong, they are under discussion in the Talk page for park:type at osm.wiki/Talk:Key:park:type#A_proposal_to_reduce_this_tag_.28initially.2C_in_the_USA.29 . Note that this is a PROPOSAL in early stages of discussion, not a "done deal" that the greater community has agreed to do.

Please abide by community standards to discuss the proposed removal of existing tags by participating in the Discussion linked above before you remove established tags. You did not contact hofoen (the Contributor who thusly tagged), you simply assert they are "clearly wrong" (they are no such thing).

Thank you (yet again) for your contributions, Mr. Snow!

Very pretty work!

_I_ have said don't contact me. Stop this. Stop this now. This virtually constant provocation will not be tolerated. It is harassment. it is abuse.

As Adam says he has "zero issue leaving me alone," then doesn't, all can see how disingenuous he is.

When he says "gone back," it is only to defend myself against provable untruths and actual slander. Any honorable person can, should and will do this. I refrained during the last several weeks, but his provocative behavior is absolutely beyond the pale. Ian saying I get defensive may be true, but there is nothing wrong with defending oneself when attacked as Adam attacks, especially as I have held my tongue for weeks now.

Does ANYbody see this troll for what he is? DWG: Help!

"That's just how you act" is another slanderous provocation: OTHER people in this project do not say such things about me and my proper decorum in this project for the last decade, only you do, and simply tossing firebombs by saying so doesn't make it so. Be gone with you!

Adam SAYS he's "done with this discussion." Yet, watch, he WILL provoke yet again. Just watch. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong.

Map. Map well.

It is patently false that Adam was not asked by OSM officials to not engage with me: see his user Talk page, osm.wiki/User_talk:Adamant1#Temporary_block_on_1_May_2019 where Wiki Administrator Minh asks him this, and says such engagement now "is the responsibility of administrators and/or the DWG." What Adam says above as "that's what the DWG/community says to do" is 100% false, especially in this exact case.

Minh continues, that if "you contribute further to tensions, a more permanent block may be considered." An inflammatory non-specific complaint such as this (again, WHICH landuse=commercial polygons?!) is PRECISELY Adam contributing to further tensions. This is a simple, undeniable truth.

Additionally, _I myself_ have asked Adam REPEATEDLY to not engage with me, privately and publicly, NUMEROUS TIMES as I consider any contact with him to be MOST unwelcome. That should be enough, but he doesn't seem to understand this (even after screaming at me "DO IT!" regarding me going No Contact). Yet he continues to scratch whatever itch he has and persists in harassing me. Conversely, I want absolutely nothing to do with Adam, yet he effectively forces me to call him out like this here. Again, I am saddened this is happening in OSM.

I wish to completely disengage with Adam and have done my very best to do so, especially over the last month-plus. I hereby request the assistance of the DWG and the greater OSM community to recognize his behavior as repeated harassment and abuse, pure and simple. Leave me alone! If Adam wishes to map what he actually knows, then MAP! Quit with the verbal rock-throwing already! It helps nobody and damages the goodwill in our project.

OSM Community: This user has been told numerous times by both me directly and the DWG to not contact me, yet he repeatedly insists on doing so in private missive, Notes and changeset comments. I consider this harassment (everybody should, as it is), especially with his non-specific complaint in this comment: it does not properly detail of what he believes is "bad" (i.e. WHICH commercial area? ; there are several in the changeset and they are all asserted to be correct). I will not endlessly "chase my tail" like this.

This user cannot communicate without complaint, false assertions, and an air of superiority and arrogance about data which he has little or no knowledge (he is not local, while I am). He remains pedantic and overtly nitpicking over what amounts to nothing at all: his sole purpose seems to be to annoy and bully. Not only is he both ineffective at this and flagrantly violates not only OSM's tenets of decorum, but those of good social graces and effective elocution as well.

I invite the community to ask this user to cease and desist this and his other harassment as you see it for what it is. I will not be the target of his intimidation and repeated, continuing abuse. Adam does not correct or improve the map (here), he simply throws firebombs into sub-communities (or targets specific individuals) and secretly thrills at any consequences of his chaotic behavior. I refuse to give him any joy in this sad activity and so should the rest of us: don't feed the troll(s).

While I would have preferred to simply ignore Adam (as I have for several weeks after going No Contact with him; yet he persisted in repeatedly contacting and provoking me), I am saddened to have to say such things in the public forum of a changeset comment. I do not wish to harm our community with what appears to be a continuing "feud" of sorts, however this needs to be said. I know of no other way to say it than to say it.

Ken has asked me to redact the segment of the changeset to restore only “Englesman Loop Trail” so he can make "ground-truthed today" changes. I have done so; it is now now way/694144114. I believe Ken will soon add his most recent ground-truthing tags.

If the (roughly-parallel) "Englesman Loop" (way/687617629) is bicycle=yes (Ken will endeavor to add these tags if appropriate), I told Ken I would stitch this segment back into CycleNet 122M (mtb/lcn route), restoring connectivity.

OK, that makes sense, thanks for your comment. (Although the road still IS there and OSM likely benefits most when it actually DOES disappear).

I also messaged user:adelman (Ken) and he says he was just out there today and is going to do an edit soon as "I think the correct disposition of the old trail is to disconnect and delete the first 20ft from each end of the two sections, leaving the rest intact. Those areas of the old road are covered in brush and clearly “decommissioned”. Based on ground truthing today."

So let's wait for his edits. If the roughly-parallel "Englesman Loop" is bicycle-friendly, it can be used to restore connectivity to CycleNet mtb/lcn route 122M, which I'll do after I see Ken's edits and he gets back to me whether the Loop (not the old fire road) is bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated. Thanks.

Please replace this trail: it exists, it simply has been set to access=no in the park. It is an old fire road, really is there, and was tagged properly by user:adelman with access=no properly a week or two ago.

Thank you!

Please undo what you did here: there are already VTA light_rail routes in OSM AND their underlying infrastructure (which these were, but are no longer due to your tagging). Did you check first before entering these? Please see our wiki at osm.wiki/California/Railroads). Also see osm.wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways which explains the difference between types of railway routes (route=railway and route=train/tram/light_rail).

These are route=railway routes (sometimes known as "underlying infrastructure"), not the passenger routes (route=trail or route=light_rail routes), which also already exist for VTA routes. It was correct for them to not have ref numbers (which only go on passenger routes, not the underlying infrastructure relations) and it was correct for them to be route=railway, not be converted into route=light_rail.

If you don't know how to correct these relations back to how they were, your changeset can be redacted in whole, which might be easier.

Offering you encouragement on nice work so far; keep it up!

Thank you for sharing your opinion of how you tag your own neighborhood, Leif.

Ian, Andy and community: really, all I wish to do is fully answer the question(s) and move on.

Wow, Ian. I am polite, conciliatory, answer questions, say please and thank you, and try not to sound strident as I dialog. Without actually saying I am confrontational, you hint that I was. I don't characterize this dialog as confrontational, though what you might detect is my frustration that I don't believe I've done anything wrong here, have bent over backwards to explain, yet this has drip-drip-dripped for a week. Honestly, it feels like I am being badgered.

Nobody says I've done anything wrong, it is simply hinted at (or is it?). Nobody says my behavior IS confrontational, it is simply stated that "there is no need." I know that, I actually don't like confrontation. I simply want to know what the problem is (if any) or if this is a misunderstanding, a lack of semantic clarity in our landuse tagging values, or what. Yet I don't get answers while I answer changing questions. In a real dialog, that would frustrate anybody. I continue to make myself available to answer questions, as that is the right thing to do, but please understand that everybody's patience exhausts and my frustration is up (as I don't understand what this is).

To snap back to the beginning (and I repeat myself): "Is it really all farmland in OSM terms?" Answer: Yes. "The imagery suggests that it looks like..." Reply: "'The imagery suggests' is a not-wholly-sufficient criterion for making a determination of landuse. It is one criterion among many, but these lands are agricultural landuse: the owners say so, public records reflect that, I've seen myriad kinds of farming activity here with my own eyes on-the-ground..., hence farmland."

Are there superior data (locally sourced, contradictory to or improvements upon what I have entered...) which might replace these 'first-draft' data? Well, yes, I have micro-mapped vineyards, orchards, greenhouse_horticulture where I see them. Of course, I invite you or others to contribute further improvements to these data. But to assert (and I'm not truly sure Andy has, part of my frustration) that this isn't farmland simply invites discussion. Yet despite my efforts to weave my way through this, if I were a lawyer/barrister I would say, "Asked and answered." Yes?