BTW, I believe it started largely at osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dpark#Do_beaches_qualify_as_parks.3F as Adamant1 asked the question embedded in the link. Though I agree it doesn't matter who started it.

I didn't say the Parks Department owns the building, I said the Parks Department owns the land. Buildings on land are also owned by the owner of the land, however they may be used. (Storage, leased to others, whatever). This IS "sound logic." What I said I didn't know is what the Parks Department uses the building for. That's all.

Speculate all you like about curtains and planters, meanwhile, I'll shrug (and pay little heed to word salad by others). You haven't really proven or disproven anything. And all I have asserted in OSM is what State Parks says.

Prove to yourself this is state park land: download the .kml file at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=862 and see that it is part of what state parks owns. If you think (now that you know it is owned by state parks) that it is something else, tag it that way. But it IS part of Twin Lakes State Beach, however it is used, so, I tagged that way. I see little offered by you except "I think people live there" to say otherwise, and while that may be true, it both doesn't make sense and it doesn't change that State Parks themselves say "this is part of this state beach."

I don't recall "we" (you or I, or OSM generally) "have already established else everything owned or maintained by the parks department doesn't automatically get tagged as a park," but if you want to say that, a good first step would be examples and counter-examples to offer as evidence/proof. (Maybe you meant "elsewhere" instead of "else," I have only your misspellings by which to glean what you mean).

I'd be fine leaving it on, I'd be fine if Adamant1 were to remove it, then document that he did that in the wiki (saying why, that it is unlikely for these to be confused, except in a California-wide context), as I agree they are not proximate except for being in the same state.

Minh, thank you for your usual dose of sanity.

In short, "what you paint, ought to be good."

You are welcome. Keep up politeness, it can and does redeem you.

I haven't bad mapping 99% of the time. 1% of the time I have bad mapping. That is OK, we (OSM) corrects our mistakes; we are human.

If I say you are 99% vituperative, yet by thanking me I say you are 1% polite by thanking me, OK. We do better. I'll even go to 2% or 3% progress because we've made some minor, incremental progress in other places. There is a long, slow, hill to climb ahead, keep up the good effort!

In short, if you can't write a bug report, what you call a bug (defect) can't be fixed, or only gets a vague bit closer because YOU were vague in the first place.

I have edited tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of things. As I've said you repeatedly, use way #s or node #s or relation #s like a big boy.

YOU said "wholesale conversion," not me.

"A few days since I wrote what?" Where? Chase your own damn tail.

Try, try again. You buy no time spewing that, sez i.

You don't like Sunny Cove? Map it. Or shut the fu*k up. I'm tired of your verbal vomit abuse time-wasting spin-around-in-circles-go-nowhere. Map. Or shut the fu*k up. You've been given a hundred opportunities.

Anything that fits on one screen (and a narrow leftward column of it, at that) isn't "needlessly long." Anybody (but you?) could agree to that, but, oh, yeah, you can't write something without being inflammatory, can you?

Map. Express your thoughts in the data structures which make our map. Paint the damn canvas, boy. I'm damn tired of seeing your vomit word salad instead.

No. Just as you don't like private missives more widely discussed, I do not discuss private missives where consensus was reached, or however it may have been achieved, that is what documenting consensus on wiki does. I owe you nothing, especially after my sincere efforts to communicate with you resulted in every single one (I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE) of your replies to me (even as you initiate new ones!) as bad-mouthing, insults, baiting/provoking, abuse or all of the above. I have extended patience with you and all it gets me is your rancorous spew. This is the very definition of a troll does.

Your "it's odd you'd forgo it here to add something that's clearly wrong" is not only presumptuous and inflammatory, it is for those reasons at least, abusive. You likely aren't aware you even do this, but that a serious problem you have. Not a problem has OSM with you, yet we may remedy that by asking you to either change or leave. The first question you ask is abusive: it smacks (heavily) of accusatory tone (nonsensically) when it has no need to do so. Your second question is the same. Is possible to not say "you, you, you..." and "your obvious hypocrisy" and "your (you're) just wrong" so much? These are inflammatory. In 50 words or less, all of them strung together rise to the level of "verbal abuse," especially when they echo similar tone over 100% of your communications to me. I've had enough; this is exhausting. It appears there are no changes in Adamant1 for the better ahead, as I doubt there is any realization (though not on my part) how far he has to go to perform simple, civil, adult, productive dialog towards collaboration. With virtually everybody else here, I collaborate. With Adamant1, I feel forced to constantly defend myself against spurious accusations and back-pedaled nonsensical word salad. No more.

Report me all you want. I'm fine, you're in the doghouse. OSM isn't a game, it's a project. Project yourself into it well (or don't, as is your seemingly only behavior).

In short, shut up and map. If you engage in civil dialog, something which I have repeatedly entreated you to do (with 100% failure on your part), I will respond in kind. But it is because you continually put me (and virtually all others in this project with which you attempt to communicate) on the defensive — a sad tactic I usually see in children, yet I have also seen in personality-disordered adults, and one most everybody sees here), I will cease trying to convey to you what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of discourse here, as you either fail to listen to these, fail to implement them or fail to develop your own communication method which isn't inflammatory. I won't even wish you "good luck" any more, even though I believe you desperately need it. As well as courage, perseverance and discipline.

"Giving me one more chance" made me laugh out loud, it is so ridiculous. Your actions (in the map) speak much more loudly than your word salad. So, map. Or contribute to wiki. Or reach consensus with others and map even better. Or all of the above. But stop directing your verbal diarrhea at me already, please. As others notice me not defending myself at Adamant1's spurious, false attacks, he should crawl back into shatever corner from which he wriggled up from. I choose to engage less, less, and finally, not at all. Disparagement continuing from him, included.

I haven't any clue what you know or don't know. If giving you links to a wiki answers your question as I do my best to remain polite in the face of your continuing verbal abuse, that's what I'm going to do: refer you to a wiki. So, RTFM. Prefixing with UP is not "clearly wrong," though it may be "wrong" in your opinion. Find a way to say that and suggest that it be changed for a good reason: see where that gets you.

(There are a fair number of rail mappers in California in OSM, we work together to achieve harmony in the wiki and the map and naming this "UP Valley Subdivision" was a consensus that emerged among us, the results of this are documented in the wiki. Yet I do patiently listen to your opinions about why you think it shouldn't be the way it is).

Not only did I read "the proximity rule" I referred you to, I wrote it. If you think it needs re-writing or disagree with it, OK, "do the right OSM thing about that."

If you think that "IN CALIFORNIA" is somehow a "wrong distance" to apply proximity (it does disambiguate them in the state rail wiki), then how about you say something like "Naming UP Valley Subdivision in Northern California by prefixing with UP isn't necessary in my opinion, as it isn't especially proximate to the SCRRA Valley Subdivision in Southern California. I propose we remove the owner/operator prefixing these, naming them both 'Valley Subdivision.'" I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that might work!

I could even get behind something like that, worded in that sort of positive-suggestion, how-about-this? sort of way. But you didn't (yet still might). See: mapping (being a mapper in OSM) isn't 100% about nodes, ways and geometry marrying geography. In this project, mapping includes reading (and sometimes contributing to) wiki, talking with other mappers (in civil tones, with humility and a polite demeanor) and reaching agreement.

"Reaching agreement" is something you repeatedly have proven to me and others you have difficulty achieving. Your rancorous tantrums so frequently red-line into verbal abuse that I had no choice but to disengage from you. This (changeset) seemed a simple "RTFM" reply I could make which broke my "No Contact," yet your petulant, bitchy, argumentativeness once again emerges. Please, find better methods to act civil and people will likely treat you that way in return.

Try it! Right here and now, take me up on my suggestion above (using your own words). I'll bounce it off a couple of relevant people (maybe I bring in happy5214 and Clorox into the dialog) and perhaps we nod our heads at what you say, agree with you and then you might get what you want. But with a temper tantrum like above, no.

While writing this reply, I was interrupted by yet another post by you to this changeset: you proved you couldn't wait six minutes for me to answer, (wrongly) predicting something I'll do so you'll lose a ten buck bet. Wow, man. Your days here are likely numbered unless you lose the bad attitude and constantly abusing people. I'm about to click the Comment button, but it feels like a mistake engaging with you at all.

There are two Valley Subdivisions in California, that's why. See osm.wiki/California/Railroads, or osm.wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways, where you can read about the "proximity exception" for nearby similarly-named railways by different operators.

You prove once again you cannot say something without insults, and you deepen your slide into "poor OSM mapper" by not performing the simple step of reading the appropriate wiki to answer your question.

Really, very nice work! Thank you for your efforts at improving sidewalks/pedestrian paths.

"Please read our county wiki for further history and the reasoning behind this, where Quaker Center is mentioned by name."

Apology accepted, and your "putting me on notice" (I won't call it a "warning," that's too harsh a characterization) makes me "sit up straight and pay full attention" that my interaction needs improvement toward a direction that is more inclusive / collaborative. Strive as I may to do that, it looks like I haven't done so (recently, here, I'm not sure). Thank you for pointing that out.

I have had good luck (well, some) with Talk pages on specific wiki pages, it is one of many "channels" of communication in OSM which falls in the middle somewhere of wide coverage. Often, only people who have also written something on the page get notified and/or pay attention, but that's more than a changeset comment like this. (Pretty small audience, but still public).

Talk-us would be more wide still, but while it may be appropriate to go there, let's see if the place=city Talk bears fruit, if any. I'm certain this has been more widely discusses, but like many topics, it rises, falls, then goes to sleep again, until it is resurrected and happens all over again. Like mountain ranges, I'd love to see a "once and for all" consensus emerge, but as we both know, that can be elusive, difficult and not always permanent.

I wish us luck in these regards. Thank you again for calling to my attention the impressions you've received from my tone. I really do want the best data in the map, too.

It is neither kind nor fair to say "Steve Knows Best."

I am not aware of "we need to give (the renderer) hints." Could you please point out where OSM says that?

I have added a comment to the place=city Talk page, where it may be more appropriate to take this discussion. (Though, I'm not "shutting this one down," simply providing a wider / more appropriate audience for the topic. We could even take it to talk-us if you like, I welcome wider discussion. (Which 100% negates your assertion that "Steve Knows Best," as I'll accede to whatever consensus emerges).

I know the Bay Area (it's local) and I know LA (I sort of grew up there with frequent family visits). Neither place is really a "quandary" w.r.t. to OSM: simply map them "as they are" and let the renderer worry what to do. Massive suburbs are massive suburbs, but that's the colloquial definition of suburb ("a city on the edge of a large city as part of a metropolitan area"). However, the OSM definition of "suburb" (from our "place" wiki) is different, and so Sunnyvale and Fremont aren't suburbs, they are cities.

Hm, cities with hundreds of thousands of people (just in your list alone: Fremont, with nearly a quarter-million — that's a town?!, Santa Clara, Fairfield, Vallejo, Sunnyvale, Hayward, Richmond, San Mateo), those REALLY should be place=city, I believe there is no good argument to be made there, despite the Alameda example (which is relatively recent wiki addition).

I'd go by a much wider (countrywide) interpretation of this tag. While I notice variations here (as I look), too, clearly, calling 100,000+ cities "towns" needs correction back to place=city. (Please).

I'd also argue that the section/example of Alameda because it is "based on its proximity" (to larger cities) is suspect at a minimum and perhaps ought to be removed. This is either "disregard reality," "tag for the renderer" or both, and I don't believe OSM wants to do that.

Well, Santa Cruz Mountains, following "the ridge line" as it does, isn't perfect either. It is a compromise for which an argument can be made that it efficiently delineates the range, though not perfectly.

I certainly wish we COULD settle on something to do this, even if it becomes regionalized (one method in Europe, one in North America...) or we classify ranges into subtypes. Alas, we haven't yet. It makes searching for them hard and it doesn't seem terribly difficult to solve, though everybody who has thrown something against the wall has had it fail to stick. Good luck to OSM re mountain ranges, we'll need it.