I have nothing good to say here, so I'll say nothing at all. Except what I just said.

"Hundreds of edits?" That is a slanderous untruth.

Thank you, Ian.

Anybody watching: permission to treat the witness as hostile?

As long as you remain a Contributor in good standing, you are welcome to edit OSM in Santa Cruz or anywhere on Earth. However, when you violate (as I say in the changeset comments as to my source) "OSM conventions" (of not damaging existing and valid data, which is considered vandalism), then you are not welcome.

The damage was (at least, there may be more, as this list is not comprehensive) to Twin Lakes Neighborhood Park, commercial zone represented by way/41171135 and residential landuse way/41170853.

I see 97% or so of your edits are done with iD, perhaps you want to graduate to a less-beginner-oriented editor, one where you might be prone to make fewer mistakes after you've learned how to use it.

Hm, a protect_class key but no boundary=protected_area, that's not right. You could add boundary=protected area if you insist that the protect_class is correct (is it?) or you could add boundary=national_park and delete the protect_class key/value pair.

It would be good to stick to one consistent set of tags on state parks, like boundary=national_park on all of them. So, if you do this to Samuel P. Taylor State Park, it would be more correct to do so to all other state parks (like Mount Tam as well, in a different changeset).

Yes, thanks. These came from the once-in-a-blue-moon-I-have-to-redact-some-foolish-changesets by a mapper who is very good at putting (and keeping) his foot in his mouth. I think I've (also) deleted most or maybe all of these; I appreciate your assistance.

Weird last 24 hours with this guy, he stepped right into being a vandal and left us no choice but to delete his mess and clean it up with better data. Oh, well, the map around Live Oak was messy for the last day and today, but is quite a bit better now, though there may still be some stray noise from the brush fire that roared through here by the name of Adamant1. I'm glad it's over, but he says he "reported me to the DWG for edit-warring him." OK, I'm not worried.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

From which of three imagery_used layers?

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at several commercial landuse were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

From which of three imaging sources cited?

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at least one commercial landuse were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

A boundary that went "to (too) far right" based on what source? One of the two imagery_used layers in your imagery_used tag? Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous polygons were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries based on what source? One of the three imagery_used layers in your imagery_used tag? Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and commercial landuses were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

A boundary that went "to (too) far right" based on what source? One of the three imagery_used layers in your imagery_used tag? Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

This amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous polygons were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

These parks aren't "fake," especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at least one commercial landuse were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Yes, "shut up and map" on my part turned into vandalism on your part. While you might make a case I was rude, I can and do make a case you are a vandal.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons and at least one commercial landuse were removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons, at least one commercial landuse and a park was removed or affected, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery layer/source was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons were removed, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

Boundaries don't "fit imagery," they simply "are." Especially when from authoritative sources, like the SCCGIS v5 and CPAD v2 data noted in our county wiki.

As not even the source of WHICH imagery was used (nor its offset), this amounts to needlessly replacing perfectly valid data with lower-quality, unsourced data.

Plus, as numerous residential landuse polygons, at least one commercial landuse and a park was removed, for no apparent reason (these are all existing objects in the real world, which were reasonably mapped), I believe the best course of action here is to revert the entire changeset.

This strongly appears to be some flavor of vandalism.

https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach calls it "Sunny Cove Beach County Park." https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach talks about how County Parks gets to name things in the area. Importantly, http://www.scparks.com/Home/Parks/ListofAllCountyParks.aspx shows County Parks administers the beach, yet not all of it is beach, as it also includes "Sunny Cove Drive Veteran’s Building" (way/686194442) which clearly isn't a beach, it's (to me) part of a park, the building is surrounded by trees and scrub, it is run by county parks, which, here, also includes beach area.