I spoke with "Jordan" (831-345-1397) who IS authoritative at State Parks and he said that a combination of California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 4326(a), together with "District Superintendent Posted Orders" (at the entrance kiosk off Hwy 9) makes all areas of "Lower Highway 9 South of Garden of Eden, except on designated roads" to be off-limits (to BOTH cyclists and even pedestrians / hikers).

The "designated roads" I have (and the website has) clarified above. So, now I am certain: access=no is the correct tag according to State Parks, state law and OSM's tagging principles for access (=no).

I'll assume the same for UCSC, but if you want me to call my former colleagues at TAPS-UCSC, I can do that, too.

Accurate tagginig is what OSM is about. Should mountain bikers decide to trespass by mountain biking here, the risk in doing so is wholly on those who choose to break this law. In short, maps don't make people trespass, trespassers decide to trespass.

And, conclusively, access=permissive is now known to be wholly incorrect.

From https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29709 (California State Parks HCRSP website):
"Bicycles are allowed only on Pipeline Road, Rincon Fire Road, Ridge Fire Road, and Powder Mill Fire Road."

From access=* (OSM's own wiki about the access tag):
"Access tags pre-eminently describe LEGAL permissions/restrictions ... regulation, rather than guesswork. They do not describe common or typical use, even if the signage is generally ignored."

As these trails are not explicitly granted access, and the same at UCSC (I have worked personally with their Transportation And Parking Services on properly mapping campus access tags in OSM, and can similarly document their explicit mountain biking paths, now properly denoted in OSM), the access=no tagging as it presently exists appears to be correct.

There are a number of "landowners" here: UCSC, State Parks (both Wilder and HCRSP). If you can point somewhere online where this "implicit permission" exists in publicly-accessible clarity (from State Parks and/or UCSC), then access=permissive might very well be correct.

For example, I got a letter from AASHTO (national-level route numbering protocol authority) to number bicycle routes that I enter (and posted a link to this letter in our wiki). For another example, I have direct emails from the Watershed Manager of the City of Santa Cruz to tag watershed lands (around Loch Lomond) exactly as they are presently tagged.

Absent those, the more restrictive tagging (access=no) applies, as that is the best data I'm working with. For access=permissive, all we need is an agency (or ranger...something authoritative) that says "it's OK to ride here, but we reserve the right to restrict this in the future..." and I'm fine with access=permissive. But (in this case, as it has been so contentious) OSM really needs something more than simply one mapper's word — we need some documentation as to the actuality of the permissiveness. Thanks for understanding we have a relatively high burden of "proof" here.

I'm listening. What is it, exactly that it is you propose to do / change?

Bravo, sir!

Such beautiful mapping; thank you!

Really solid additions and data updates here — thank you for your efforts at editing OSM!

Nice work, thank you!

OSM and I appreciate your efforts, IsStatenIsland!

Hi Evan: Nice work in Day Valley! On Day Valley Road (way/10550100), would you say that your new alignment is good enough to remove the tiger_reviewed=no tag? In other words, if your realignment was an improvement to the extent it's better than it was when entered in 2008 (likely, especially after 35 versions!), might you please remove the tiger_reviewed=no tag, meaning you consider it TIGER Reviewed? Thanks!

I suppose that since Cody is now tagged boundary=census that Alta and Jackson Hole "should" be as well? (And done, if so, I think). Can anybody confirm or actually do or might Brian or I do so?

👍

The reason these are not seen in a particular image is because they are seasonal. Somewhere around May-September, these are erected as temporary structures and staffed with lifeguards during the busy summer beach season.

It's awesome to see you "clearing TIGER road review"(s) as you continue to deepen and richen our local map data!

Bill, thank you for all your efforts with USBR 95! I must ask that you cease all editing of it in OSM immediately as it was goofed up severely (duplicated duplicated segments...) not even yet being before AASHTO. It's all wrong to even touch this right now (except for jimmies and sprinkles like Imperial Beach becoming México to be more Oregon-to-México California-wide). Camp Pendleton appears done, thanks again for great work there.

No edits on 95 until 95 is Approved (if it is), and then only with a newer resubmission, which I'd likely know about. Kerry, Jenn (ACA), Stephanie (Caltrans, our DOT) and I are literally freezing this right now. I'll fix the route goofed up (wrongly included in the super-relation) with an early-June archive. No toucha, please, Bill. Our wiki describes these, if you can't edit them (it appears you can't), don't edit them.

Your lucky day, Black_Diamond; the door closed just today with Stephanie Alward (Caltrans) agreeing (after years!) "the route is 100% complete and correctly entered." (Many heads nod, your correction went through the right channels, renderers chug away...).

Give it a few days (end of first week in June) to fully render in OCM for both NB and SB directions. Looks like end-of-June we'll hear about AASHTO Approval and by July 95 will go from red-dashed to red-solid throughout California (except for the "Pendleton Gap"). But there's options there, it's OK. Whew, we did it!

Thank you very much; done (with your link included)

A changeset comment might be terse to write all this: let's use the Talk page on United States Bicycle Routes wiki. Briefly, this was tagged ncn, I did some research into NSBs / All-American Roads and because of the (national-level) US Secretary of Transportation's designation of these (where GR "goes first") that ncn is correct.

Then a frequent bike mapper around the Twin Cities changed it back, I contacted him, he saw my point(s) and said, in essence, yes, these are more quasi-national (because of this).

We (OSM-US) remain in a "listening mode" as GR really is "going first" here. If it continues to vacillate or we don't get more bike routes that are NSBs entered into OSM that are tagged ncn, well, it could go either way. But for now, it is "emerging" that ncn is correct.

That sounds great. I'm going to be doing some watching and my usual listening, as I'm cautious about making "wholesale" changes to tagging, too. There really might be this new category of "quasi-national" emerging, and GR is the very first one in OSM, blazing a trail.

Maybe days, maybe a week, maybe a month, things don't move too swiftly in OSM, that gives time for consensus. I wrote what I wrote about this potential new category into our wiki a couple / three months ago, so as to see if other NSBs / AARs get entered into OSM...we'll see.

Thanks for your good dialog!

OK, that's helpful. Thank you.