Are you sure about this change in geometry?

I'll walk over there tomorrow to check but I'd like to verify what you were seeing.

Is it really named "Talega Gold Course"? I would have thought "golf" rather than "gold".

p.s. You've done a lot of mapping in the Talega area recently. More than I'd expect from a generic lyft driver. Are you a resident of the area? If so, then welcome!

Based on the state of La Pata it looks like Mapbox has newer imagery in this area than Bing. (Bing still shows the construction baracades while Mapbox shows the now current (by my survey) dual carriageway and line striping.)

Based on your edit attribution and the imagery, it looks like you used Bing. But the apparently newer Mapbox imagery shows quite a different road and parking around where you put a circular unclassified road.

Question: Have you done a on-site survey to see which imagery is (more) correct?

I can agree that PCH from the north end of Dana Point to Crown Valley could be tagged as trunk. But north of Crown Valley into Laguna Beach is it debatable (lower speed limit, many more stop lights, driveways, cross traffic, etc.)

Not sure if that is the same change set or not, looking at the map on OSM it looks like some reversion is needed along that section.

I've already done it. :)

And along the way, corrected the lanes on Del Prado and added turn lanes, etc.

Your comments refer to the legislation regarding the name. Yet the big change I see on at least a couple of sections is changing from primary to trunk.

You did that in the middle of Dana Point where PCH is signed at 35 MPH and has stop lights every few hundred feet. For the US the wiki at highway=trunk specifically says "A relatively high-speed divided road (at least 40 MPH with a barrier or median separating each direction of traffic), with a limited amount of intersections and driveways; or a major intercity highway". This road does not meet that standard and the highway classification should be reverted.

FWIW, after your changes I drove that road this morning to verify my recollections and to get photos for OpenStreetCam.

See highway=trunk and highway=motorway

In particular a motorway needs to have no pedestrians on it. There are no signs prohibiting pedestrians at either end, nor are there the customary for California "Begin Freeway" and/or "End Freeway" signs. On northbound La Pata there is a sidewalk while south bound there is also pedestrian access where the Forster Ranch Ridgeline Trail connects with the trails on the east side via an over pass.

I disagree about reclassifying La Pata between the high school and san clemente as a freeway: The presence of a bicycle lane, etc. mean that it does not meet the legal requirements of a limited access highway.

My previous thought that it was a primary but I'd agree to trunk.

And what is it about deleting and then redrawing part of the south bound way? That lost the previous edit history for no good reason I can see.

No objections in particular. . . I'd been holding off on making those other tagging changes on the campgrounds I'd mapped until the discussion had ended.

I know that tourism=camp_pitch has been approved. But has the other per-pitch tagging you've changed been fully discussed? Seems like the tagging email list is still hashing that out and I've not see an announcement for a vote.

Diddo Omnific's comment. At the very least please conflate you adds/changes with the existing data. Your last attempt at this was reverted and I think this one should to.

Thanks for the clean up and additions in this area.

I see that the tiger:reviewed=no tag is still on some of this. I did not remove it when I edited in the area as I only get to that area once in a while (I'll actually be arriving in Oracle tomorrow). But since you are more local maybe you are better to decide when the various trails/roads are correct enough to remove that tiger reviewed tag.

Thanks for your work!

For the Walmart in my town you've duplicated the store with a new node. There should be only one object for each feature. Old polygon is 395695579 and your new node is 6292287233.

Since there are apparently 4671 nodes you've touched/added here, this seems to be a mechanical edit and poorly done at that as your "OSM Conflator" did not conflate this at all.

Pretty darned sure those are 'service' rather than 'residential'. I tried walking that neighborhood to get addresses a couple years ago and there were no street names and each looked like they were shared driveways.

Curious on how you determined that the service road is oneway. That area is not accessible by the general public so it can't be done by survey. And the aerial imagery doesn't seem to indicate a whether it is oneway or bidirectional traffic.

Interesting: Bing and Esri World have significantly different offsets in this area. I think that is a gated area but I'll try to get some GPS tracks for that street in the next couple of days.

Hi Keith, Me again. :)

Looks like you and I have similar interests in tagging camping and hiking areas.

Have you considered using the campground tagging suggested at osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches rather than putting names on the individual parking ways?

They are now merged. With respect to rendering, I noticed this because my private topo map rendering showed two names at this location.

The photos do show some ruins for the old camp/lodge building that was there but not a formal USFS current campground. That is the reason I originally put a "locality" on it instead of a campground.

At the least, perhaps we should merge the two POI as we are talking about one place.

Is there really a trail camp here? There did not seem to be last time I was in that area and I don't see one listed at https://www.recreation.gov/camping/gateways/1061