So, you've broken the wood polygon for the Pogonip. How are you going to fix that?

Thanks. This has been rather complicated for at least a decade, and it may change. Not everybody reads the county wiki, so it's easy to miss.

The root of this is how people tag differently for "landuse" (as the university is) vs. "landcover" (like wood, grass, scrub...). It is complex and has become exacerbated by what people can see in increasingly technically-better aerial / satellite imagery.

The renderers have tried to keep up with multiple -use -cover "conflicts," and again, "it is complex."

I think this / these issues are slowly beginning to resolve themselves, but the local convention at UCSC does make for a "prettier" campus (for now). In the future, there may be some wider consensus hammered out which most agree is both pretty and accurate (to that future day's tagging standards). Meantime, we sort of smear the truth a little bit. Thanks for your understanding and you are perfectly welcome to contribute additional strategies to the map or the wiki.

I like your other three new edits, but this one seems off to me. If this were a place where (team) sports are played, or perhaps were a dedicated hacky-sack court, maybe. But it is primarily a pedestrian plaza, which is how it was marked.

I ask you politely to remove the landuse=recreation ground tag, please.

Hooray: I like the way that we (you, I, others...) are better "blending" both landuse= (residential, forest...) and natural=wood (scrub, grassland...) together. Sometimes these overlap, and that's OK!

I'm doing similar things in Santa Cruz County by "uncoupling" some quite-old tagging customs here (from older imports), sometimes this means untangling "park" (and its relatives) from how we tagged here. It is going well.

Thanks for your good work, good collaboration and good dialog along the way!

Why would you change this to a leisure=recreation_ground? That's not correct at all, it is a landuse=residential.

I'll fix this, but I'd like your reply, even if it simply says, "oops, yes, you're correct, I made a mistake here."

I believe I fixed this with barrier=ditch

Fantastic work, Micah, thank you!

(No @ before my name, that's OK). Wow, thanks for the quick reply!

Yes, as I said, it looks much better around central campus and has been improving recently — now I know you've been one of the busy ones fixing "bad offsets" and a whole bunch of confusing skew on a lot of campus buildings and roads. Good to hear the alignment issues will be "knit together" with downtown and wider areas, that seems quite correct.

I'll keep an eye on relations and other issues: many hands make light work. The map "fabric" crowdsourced by many more than one set of eyes makes it all work and work well!

In short: looking great!

I have been frustrated by over ten years of imagery alignment difficulties in OSM around UCSC. Realizing how careful and tedious this work must have been for you to complete, I wanted to thank you for your care to finish it. Zooming in recently around both Red Square and Theater Arts, I've never seen the alignment look so spot-on. Thank you!

AGAIN, SORRY! My mistake, my edit, not yours. It looks like somehow a tag of ACRES got changed to "foot" with the same value. Fixing, though I suppose it could be deleted and computed.

Sorry, I meant relation/7070301, not way; my mistake.

Yes, I meant to ask what is the foot=* tag here? I'm familiar with this being used as an access=foot value, but not as a tag with a numerical value. Thanks.

Nice chatting with you.

I appreciate that you took the time to type all that, even the snark about California.

I have not had "prolonged edit wars," that is a false characterization on your part and looks a lot like you casting the first stone.

Whether something is at v1 or not matters not. Somebody has to enter data the first time.

Good to hear that as some loose-cannon user is making a mess, you are on the hunt.

Scripts, bots, both are "automated edits" and your distinctions are awry, largely meaningless.

"You have no idea why I'd get notification" is no excuse for either lack of acknowledgement that I did, or taking responsibility that it was your changeset (via automated edit scripts) that caused it to happen.

This does sound like it can be swept away as a simple misunderstanding, of which I firmly place onus of responsibility squarely on your shoulders. While I appreciate that you are trying to limit damage or vandalism by an as-yet-unnamed perpetrator, you look like one yourself when your countermeasures produce unintended and unpleasant results.

Please be more careful with your automated edits in the future. If you don't understand what the tools you are using do, including unintended consequences, I (and other members of the community) prefer you not use them.

Your "not sure" is likely because you haven't read the History of the node.

It appears (I do believe this but I could be slightly mistaken) that I entered FIXME tags which get 'bot corrected to fixme and somehow your bot gets involved as "something you edited" (as did I, or I entered a FIXME).

It's not gigantic, it's annoying, it's "like" an alarm going off (when it doesn't need to) as it's a mechanical ping-pong between FIXME and fixme and FIXME and your bot notices and I get notified because I'm in the edit history.

I am editing in Hawaii as I help user:ZeLonewolf with admin_level, place, census polygon tagging on Oahu as he was importing census and we've been sort of tight the last few days off-list (so you wouldn't know that) after being public on talk-imports for a few weeks. I don't expect you to know that either but it has been public and our database is so open you could look at histories or read a talk-page or click the History tag as it keeps all of us better informed.

I hear you when you say "not so easy" and I appreciate whatever efforts you expend to pour a little cool water on your 'bots, thanks in advance for those efforts. Yes, it is the edit trails where we overlap where such triggers go off, now I hope you have a better idea how to quiet it down. Cheers.

Seems your 'bot is overzealous, freebeer.
Your "revert undiscussed automated retagging of objects where I prevented reasons to keep existing tagging" statement, especially when issued by a 'bot, is hyperbolic hubris.

This started because it appeared a place=suburb tag is proposed to be deleted because it seems TFTR and then a FIXME becoming a fixme tag triggered this very wide-area 'bot-slap. I don't need such alarms going off in my face, so please adjust both attitude and code accordingly.

If that sounds impolite, please know I only want to go to "stern," not impolite.

OSM community: I once again apologize to you for this spectacle and the difficulty I faced in dealing with it. I will strive to continue to do my best in facing these (hopefully rare) frictions as they occur should they rear their ugly head in the future. And may it never happen to you or your OSM fellow volunteer contributors. If it does, I only ask that you do your best to identify bad behavior as you see it and point it out to the greater community with aplomb and civility.

I did not contact the individual known as Adamant1 as he said I did above; that is yet another of his untruths. I did state in this public place that he private-messaged me after being warned — an hour before by an administrator who blocked him as well as by me (at least a dozen times) — to (yet again) NOT CONTACT ME. I, stevea, consider such continuing behavior by the individual known as Adamant1 as criminal electronic harassment under California Penal Code §653.2 and §646.9. "No" means "no." Civil remedies are available to me as well. This is not "playing victim," it is black-letter law. My experience of harassment is real, the damages to my reputation and OSM are real. If anyone wishes to now characterize me as "whistleblowing," that's fine with me.

The perpetrator keeps saying "I won't be responding..." yet he keeps responding. Make of that what you will, OSM community. There was not "zero reason" for me to comment, we were just told to avoid contact, yet Adam back-channeled both of us (keeping his words in the dark from each other and the community). It should be obvious to all what his "partitioning" does here; nothing more need be said about it.

I have no idea why things aren't clear to Adam. Things are crystal-clear to me: my four-word reply to woodpeck said "Sounds about right, thanks."

Less talk; more mapping. Map. Map well.

"anybody would BE able to understand."

Adamant1 just contacted me via private message after being told many many many times that this is unwelcome, yet he persists in doing so. He appears to be trying to "do something" by this (and keeping it private) after above he immediately asked to do this (keep it private) with woodpeck. I find this disingenuous at best and downright deceitful at worst.

As I have said many times, and as Open is our first name: this sort of dispute does not end well by being spoken about in hushed tones behind everybody's back. It only benefits by being spoken about in the open.

Let's keep any discussion with full candor in the open, please. What woodpeck wrote was unambiguous, as clear as crystal to me; it seems anybody would able to understand.

I'd say to ask it in the open and it would be better.