BTW, if you are working on these, might I ask you to also do your best to keep that wiki page synced with your efforts? It's really nice when the wiki chasing the map chasing the wiki chasing the map chasing the wiki finally "settle down" and more-or-less reflect one another.

Yeah, seeing this is barely a kilometer long, it doesn't seem like a "route," although it may certainly be a km or so of bicycle infrastructure. So the way should remain in OSM, but yeah, the relation should be deleted. (It's a mess, as it's both network=lcn, "l" meaning "local," yet the cycle_network=US:NJ tag means a "statewide" / regional route).

I'm comfortable you deleting relation/8780168 and thanks for contacting me!

Taking a look at certain things...stand by.

Ah, it was added over 5 years ago by Valustaides via Changeset #63245538.

See our wiki: osm.wiki/New_Jersey/Cycle_Route_Relations .

Although, I don't recall adding RRA. It might have been that I "touched" this (RRA) relation as I was working on a USBR, 9-11 Trail or the ECG through here. "RRA" seems like something somebody else added.

Can you dig more into the History of the relation you refer to?

Looking nicer and nicer; thanks for your improvements.

That last part I agree with you 100%: 2D, high-altitude (satellite) imagery, unless you're doing something sophisticated and stereoptic — think 3D movie glasses with red and blue lenses — can be the very definition of bland.

Having "cliffs, canyons and crevices" pretty much "jump out at you" is one of the more fun aspects of mapping I've discovered. With these data, that happens way more often that with satellite data; they can certainly be "richer" that way.

It's like having two clocks (or watches): unless they exactly agree, you're not really sure exactly what time it is. USGS can be out-of-date for trails (closed, overgrown... (though, stream data stays pretty consistent). 3DEP can be high-quality, but it may not be better than local data (or, it might be, hard to say).

With OSM, "on the ground" data (a GPS survey, best with a "deep woods" receiver that has 16 channels or better of satellite reception) is usually accepted as definitive or authoritative, though official sources (federal, state, local) can be excellent. As long as it is moving from good to better and better to "essentially perfect," OSM moves in the right direction!

Nice work with "visible trails in 3DEP;" good to see official trails match both Calif. State Parks and USGS data. I'm not sure where the stream / creek data came from, but just across the border in Santa Cruz County, stream data came from SCCGIS.

Thank you!

Thank you for your additional comments. I am glad we found some common ground, that the incorrect data have been removed, and that this sort of error will not happen again (by you adding rail data which OSM agrees should not be in our map).

There are some kinds of rail data we do add to our map and some kinds of rail data (like the kind you entered) which we do not add to our map. Thank you for observing and respecting that distinction.

You would be incorrect that I checked your profile to determine your age; I did not. I simply guessed (by your behavior, the "but I don't want to do it by myself" sounded childish, so I guessed correctly).

Let's tone down what shouldn't be aggressive nor angry. I am not trying to create tensions, either. I most certainly have not threatened you, nor do I mean to do so.

If you find it "difficult to remove what you have added to the map," that is a problem. It actually does mean that you should not be adding things to the map in the first place (if you are unable or unwilling to remove them, especially if they are in error, and very especially if they are the same type of error data which you have entered before as an error, then you did it again).

Your error data have been removed by another OSM volunteer (IIVQ). Please: do not add more "rail data" to OSM.

When you repeatedly make the same mistake (after being told it is a mistake, and agreeing with us — the wider community — that it was a mistake, and then correcting your mistake), you deserve some judgment, even judgement which gets increasingly harsh.

OSM is a serious project, with serious data and serious people who want to maintain high quality in our data. Sometimes (as here) we must pass judgement when we see that others are "polluting" our map with bad data. Such judgement is not deserved for a "first mistake." (And you received only courtesy when this happened the first time). But when such a large mistake is repeated, the OSM community can, should and will judge such action as hostile to our mapping practices.

Especially when it is rebuffed with "but I don't want to delete it myself." That truly does appear like childish behavior (so it appears I guessed correctly that you are "under 18"). When either adults or children repeatedly add bad data to the map (in similar fashion to how they have done so recently, knowing it was wrong), such behavior will be rebuffed by the OSM community — with (sometimes harsh) judgment. If you don't like being treated like a child when acting childish, perhaps you should find another project to participate in. Otherwise, you will discover that thinking you do not deserve judgement will continue to surprise you, because you do deserve judgement.

It's fairly easy to follow our community guidelines, especially after you have been repeatedly told. Do so, without entering bad data, and you will receive no judgment. In fact, I frequently offer accolades and congratulations to (especially newer) mappers who map well — right here in changeset comments! On the flip-side, when there are errors, and especially repeated errors, you are going to hear about it. If you consider that "judgment," that's because it is, and again, it is deserved.

Well, then ask for help specifically here. Say "I cannot do it myself" not "I don't want to do it by myself." Unless you are a child, and if so, say so, and we will do it for you. And, don't do this again.

Otherwise, remove it yourself.

Thank you for your tight and touching reply. I have seen it happen where someone will enter layer=2 (for the third layer that might be there because there may be a layer=1 that isn't clearly known).

We've now got this one straightened out, and clearly!

I remember when AA was killed there, indeed such a tragedy was big news.

Yes, layer=0 isn't normally used, it is simply "known" (and implicitly used as level ground). I know Mapillary or StreetView can be used. The more inputs, the better, the more certain the knowledge (at least one person, strongly asserting as reality), the better.

This is firmly nailed in place as-is.

Actually, with a "triple-crossing) of two roads AND rail (with sidewalk-cycleway) there could very well be three layers.

Are you sure? Maybe the Monterey Road and Coast Subdivision are different levels (which doesn't hurt, if true), in which case "there are three."

But this is not an at-grade crossing. See? It could be two or three and we're not sure now.

Nice! I love your work, videos, updates!

It is well-established that OSM creates neither components of nor any whole of the Trans-European Transport Network (a "combined road-rail planning network"). Please remove these (again, as you have done before and acknowledged were wrong in that thread). Do not enter additional components of this / these.

Cool!

A kind offer re WSDOT contacts. This is in a sort of "cold storage holding pattern" for now, so let's see what Kerry uncovers later in the year.

Enjoy all that beauty out there!