Oops, I offer you an opportunity for explanation. I'm curious where these route data (especially that they are "Route 8 in the USBRS") came from.

Well, not so fast...I mean it's likely I will remove it given your response. However, I offer you an explanation for where these data came from, and/or what makes / made you think "I am pretty sure this is where the route is going to go." Really, I'm listening.

Um, have you read our USBRS wiki? (Full disclosure, I am substantially its author; other OSM volunteers help enter the route data, one recently from Germany!). Please see osm.wiki/USBRS and if you care to read about the German guy who helped, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/aashto-s-usbrs-proposals-spring-2024-round-new-national-bicycle-route-proposals/110761 ).

What seems like it is happening is that a new category of "national" bike routes is emerging, namely these "designated by a national-level agency" (Grand Rounds / GR in an "All American Road" as part of the National Scenic Byway system, so designated by the US Secretary of Transportation). See osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks , the "Quasi-National" section (National is for USBRs).

Both national and quasi-national are agreed to be tagged with network=ncn in the USA, making them both red in Cycle Map layer (or pinkish in CyclOSM). So, this was tagged ncn a few months ago, which made me think that a new "category" of quasi-national routes is emerging: those which are All American Roads (or NSB, a subset of AARs).

Yet, it may be that your local view of the cycleway networks is "easier" to see GR as regional / purple, rather than national / red, since the Twin Cities have a rather complex confluence of USBRs 20, 41, 45 (MRT) and 45A (MRT-Alt).

There's a long history here, and lots of people (in OSM, in state transportation circles, at the national AASHTO level...) strive to get this correct (since about 2011). However, I really want to hear local concerns / preferences. Thank you once again in advance.

This is not how we use the state=proposed tag for national-level bicycle routes in the USA. Please see our osm.wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_System for "the national system" and osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks for how we tag bicycle routes in general (national, regional, local) in the USA.

The tag (really, the entire relation) should be removed unless you can point to what our wiki calls "a serious statewide effort to create such a route." As someone fairly plugged into how this is done, I sincerely doubt this, but I am listening. Not answering means the ncn tag (and possibly route relation) will be removed.

May I ask why you changed Grand Rounds NSB from network=ncn to network=rcn? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm very much in listening mode. Thank you.

Nice!

Where is the "administrative boundary" of any "unincorporated community" defined? (I mean, strictly?)

If you say it is a (US Department of Commerce) Census Boundary, that's OK, but those are tagged with boundary=census.

By wide OSM community consensus, unincorporated areas (in California and at least 47 other states), do not receive an admin_level value, of 9 or any other value on the admin_level key.

A boundary=administrative + admin_level=9 tag is (sometimes, under very recently agreed to by local, New England area residents) occasionally tagged on unincorporated areas in New Hampshire, Maine and (more rarely) Vermont, but it was a real stretch to get there, though OSM did. See our United States/admin_level wiki page (and its companion, United States/Boundaries).

👍

I ask that if you assert that you are definitively stating roads / streets into OSM (like Redwood Drive, which appears to come from TIGER data, but is version 1) that you remove the tiger:reviewed=no tag.

There remains a fair amount of TIGER Review to complete in Santa Cruz County (though we make steady progress) and every little bit of assertion as to "better data" helps.

I am not sure boundary=political is best, it is a dart on the board, and not on the bullseye. It may be boundary=historic works, this is all very liquid. I think this needs a wider discussion medium than the narrow bandwidth of a changeset comment. I welcome a new topic in the USA section of our Discourse forum.

This all seems do-able, but it always benefits more from a wider, deeper audience. So, while you might choose to "worry," tossing it to a wider discussion is prudent. I wouldn't say I "took care of it," I "hit the dartboard but not the bullseye."

If you think border_type=planning_region can stick (and now that you mention it, I can see this sticking widely across many states), it's beginning to roll down the track of getting nailed together. We lay down some track here and continue with wider discussion.

I think it's fine to split off separate named areas (from unnamed areas), as you have.

MCP, RdG and CO are individual things (now) and so should be tagged accurately "for what they are, as they are." That can be like nailing up jello. You, or somebody, or you-interpreting-CPAD or something like that must know something about these in order to properly enter them into OSM.

That includes the (complex) history of how such tagging both emerges and remains fluid. So, we are now having a "what do you know about these places and how do you wish to tag them" discussion.

Whether something even has leisure=nature_reserve tag applied can be a long/messy discussion I'd like to avoid. It is true that this tag is associated with places that people can (easily) go to so we can, say, "observe nature" from a trail, platform, parking lot, or maybe take a hike if we stay on the trail. If you know those places are like that, tag them so, perhaps with a bit more micromapping (a parking node, a trail...).

Let's stick to this single issue / place for now. When you ask "where else" or "which others" my answer is "all of them" (if that applies). But, one at a time. There are also "front-country/back-country" aspects to this where you start drawing into the map what you do know, even a rough sketch around a picnic area or a directional infosign could suffice.

I saw that you added that, and thank you, it is relevant and does clarify that these are closed areas. That's where I have the disconnect: a closed area really isn't a "leisure" anything, which is why the leisure=nature_reserve tag seems inaccurate to me. When I use that tag, it implies that there is public access (though limited to staying on trails and/or the "wildlife viewing area" which is often fenced, has interpretive signage and suggests binoculars).

These (closed) areas really are not that. The other tags, withOUT leisure=nature_reserve, are sufficient to express these. Although the protect_class=5 that causes rendering in Carto is often "over-applied" (and not strictly an IUCN denotation).

I've been active for almost 15 years in trying to improve the tagging on these in OSM, and it's been a struggle, with a lot of misunderstanding of existing tagging, and more difficult, tagging which evolves. For example, Brian Sperlongano (Zelonewolf) and Kevin Kenny (ke9tv) and I have been working to reduce the protect_class numbering (which is a mess) and introduce "plain English tagging" with protection_class. I realize it can be difficult to follow our wikis, newer proposals, the "drift" in semantics over time as tagging conventions change and evolve, but please take a look at as much wiki as you can on these topics: it's complex, but it does sink in after seeing the historical trajectories OSM has taken in the last decade or so.

There is a leisure=nature_reserve in Santa Cruz (Pogonip Open Space Reserve) which I believe is accurately tagged (that), especially as it is an "open" area, not closed to the public. These (MROSD, others around the Bay Area) which have closed areas shouldn't have leisure=nature_reserve applied. Thanks, I'm happy to further dialog, offer perspective and answer any questions, although I certainly don't know everything!

Nobody said anything about landuse=natural_reserve which is a strongly discouraged tag. I am asserting that leisure=nature_reserve is for areas where "people go for leisure, to the nature reserve" (where they might hike, if they stick to the trail, or stay at the wildlife viewing area, with their binoculars, if they don't want to venture too far into the reserve.

While "special opportunities" do exist for people to visit the actual-wilderness or near-wilderness areas (like it appears this is) you must get a special permit, someone doing specific academic research can be seen to get clear to do botanical or biological or whatever studies, but the general public (who "leisure"), no.

leisure=nature_reserve is an older tag and newer tags (in the protect_class numbered or protection_class plain-English vein) are preferred, as they are much less ambiguous. I really do think this might be a leisure=nature_reserve for some purposes, but both of us don't seem to know that (yet).

Try a site visit and see how difficult that is. That should tell you if this is a (casual) "leisure" area. I think the tagging is otherwise correct without this tag.

I believe so, too!

I'd ask that you remove the leisure=nature_reserve tag from both of these closed polygons, as they are more distinctly "the remaining tagging" which would be correct if "leisure" tagging were removed. There isn't anything leisure about this polygon (in the sense that OSM defines leisure=*). Thanks in advance for seeing this and removing that tag.

Nice work: boundary sharpening from CPAD, as CPAD "had something to offer."

They are mazes indeed. I'll call them "an advanced class in more-complex multipolygons," especially with all the history associated with them.

Still, we seem to make them sturdier, more accurate (punching out inners in correct ways) better tagged and up-to-date with changing tagging tastes. For anybody who keeps track of this (mentally and internally with OSM's history and changeset archives) it is both complex and explainable, but more of the former!

👍

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.