bdiscoe: Please redact this farmland removal polygon, or at least redact your changeset and update the polygon so it is landuse=residential.

If you read osm.wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landuse (paragraph six) you'll see that the County does zone every single hectare in this zone to be "Residential-Agricultural" and exhorts OSM contributors to "improve these!"

I don't have a problem with you changing this polygon to landuse=residential if you believe that to be more correct: they are a mix of residential properties which are allowed by county zoning to also allow commercial agricultural use.

But I do have a problem with you simply removing it without replacing it with anything better.

SteveA
Santa Cruz

Hi Bill: Yes, again, it is rather subtle and a bit complicated. There is a state of California route called PCBR, which is what OSM is trying to channel with this route. That is different than the ACA route by essentially the same name, which should NOT be entered into OSM, as it is commercial / proprietary to ACA.

Please read our wikis such as osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks , osm.wiki/California/Cycling_Relations and osm.wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Cycle_Routes . These will give you perspective, history, and hopefully instructions on how to properly tag approved routes, and how to VERY CAREFULLY tag proposed routes, but there are some high bars to reach before OSM consensus allows those to be entered.

(I got a good chewing out by folks in the Data Working Group about putting proposed USBRs into OSM after my talk in DC, but the waters seem to have smoothed over since then. However, only if we respect the emerged consensus).

Happy to guide, send me an OSM missive any time and I'll answer with my very best.

Thanks, SteveA

Or, maybe better, the wiki's Discussion section (tab at top).

Hi Bill, thanks for your reply.

Please see our wiki page on this: osm.wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System

ACA routes are proprietary and copyrighted and not compatible with OSM's ODbL (license). It's a long, long story. I have largely written that wiki, work with ACA (including its "super volunteer" in these endeavors, Kerry Irons, as well as its Board of Directors), got AASHTO to give OSM permission to use its ballot data to map routes, and spoke on the topic at SOTM-US in Washington, DC in 2014.

It may be that various cities have "endorsed" their jurisdiction's segments of the route, but really, only an AASHTO approval is going to allow this route to be entered (without the state=proposed tag).

Again, it's been a six- or seven- year long story, rife with OSM politics, and I appreciate that you are helping to channel the consensus that has emerged by allowing the USBR 66 route in California to emerge as it has and now is. Please don't add "proposed" route to the map, but rather communicate what intentions you might have in the wiki page's Proposed Section, USBR 66 in California row of the table.

Thanks, SteveA

BTW, there is a wiki page for the whole USBRS (system), where each route is listed. There are no links to the "originating documentation" for (AASHTO) approved routes, but there are links for the ballots for the routes that are proposed at any given time.

See osm.wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System

By "double" I think you mean "doubt" and by "change" do you mean "chance?"

I might suggest you download the doc which I generously point you to and do whatever you need to do with it.

I believe my part of helping you is complete.

Try here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/idtfhretq0urelu/AADNm6RwNePgBHKkKZphkYMja?dl=0

and click the USBR 37 IL link.

Cheers, SteveA.

Yes, I used the Illinois Department of Transportation's application to AASHTO. It is a nine page document with maps and route descriptors (turns and lengths). I can send it to you if as an attachment if you give me an email address. -SteveA

Hello Bill. Please source the data you use to enter USBR 66 in California. I'm quite familiar with tagging this and I don't think you can tag a route as you have here: it is only an early sketch of a route, proposed, and not signed on the ground. Please explain your intentions. Thanks, SteveA.

Bill, I do here and now ask what are your sources for putting in USBR 95 into California. This route isn't even proposed, and/or you may be conflating the ACA's route of a similar name to be a USBR 95 which is not even a Caltrans ballot before AASHTO.

Awaiting your reply, and these data (specifically inclusion of these segments in the route relation) implies you have seen some signage on the ground to mark the route. I don't mind that, but it would be what Caltrans calls PCBR and you could put tag name=PCB in the route relation. But inclusion of these segments in a route relation for USBR 95 as you have with ref=95, nope, nah-ahh, until you source these route data. Thanks, SteveA.

OSM does not name "private property" the way you have. Please remove these tags.

Hi dwl-sdca: Might I ask you to read up on our wiki page for access=* before you use a tag like access=restricted on roads like these? The value "restricted" on the access tag isn't documented. Please consider changing this to access=no emergency=fire. Or, if it is truly private, access=private emergency=fire. Also, the name=* tag shouldn't contain " (private/emergency)" as name=* only should contain a name, not other data. Thank you.

Whoops, no. Thank you for catching this! Of course, I'm perfectly OK with any correction that you might make to this. As well, I'll look out for any other, similar mistakes I have made and correct them.

It's a bit complicated. If you haven't already, please see our wikis for both United_States_admin_level (especially cite_note=49) and WikiProject_United_States/Boundaries (especially the USMOI note in Notable exceptions).

As far as admin_level needing to be "something," as noted in the US/Boundaries wiki, it suffices that each island is U.S. territory surrounded by territorial waters, delineated admin_level=2. So, for example, something like http://layers.openstreetmap.fr shows "USA territorial waters" surrounding each island (if you have the admin_level=2 box checked).

You are probably correct, as those wikis state that these ARE statistical boundaries. As each member of the relation DOES have an admin_level=2 tag, it all works out, but cite_note 49 does request that we keep the relation. Yes, we should, but if you strongly believe that it shouldn't have a boundary=administrative tag and want to change that to (user-defined, yes) boundary=statistical then I don't have a problem with that. Thanks for bringing this up.

Thanks for everybody's good communication here. They do put erasers on the ends of pencils, as we all make little errors now and then! (Don't sweat the small stuff; it's all small stuff). Happy mapping to you as well, stevea

Oops, used an old changeset comment. It should be "Meadows SW of Gilroy."

Ian, please check your "missives Inbox."

hey, oormilavinod. I appreciate your welcome, though I've been an OSMer for most of the project (>8 years), I was named Mapper of the Month earlier this year, and presented talks at SOTM-US conferences in 2014 and 2016.

What road, exactly did I "pull?" I am usually quite careful when I edit, but it is possible I made a mistake with a pulled road. If you identify it (with a link, not a name), I will fix it, as I am local to this area.

Thanks for calling this to my attention (though I'm still not sure what road is wrong), Steve

Nice work, Minh and everybody involved!

I think you should change (fix!) your tripplanner then. Not make changes to the map data which make a accurate tags no longer true. Please revert this change and fix your software, not tag the data with lies so you don't have to.