I'm not sure where I got this (I sketched my understanding with a pen, leving my notes "source-less.") It was from maybe six months ago about how "orange" was being introduced into the VTA light_rail lines when BART SV arrives in the 2020s and it didn't call Orange MV->Winchester, it called Orange MV->Alum Rock. Baypointe becomes a "transfer station" as it serves all three (Orange, Blue, Green). This "truncates" Blue and Green at North 1st and Baypointe. (Orange is East-West, a bit SE towards Alum Rock), Green is (N-S, with a SW jog to Campbell) Baypointe->Winchester and Blue is (N-S with a SE jog to Santa Theresa) Baypointe->Santa Theresa.

It seems like you (or the signs? photo appears to be Baypointe...) say Orange will be a direct replacement for Green, while Blue will remain as it is today. Are we clear? (I honestly say no: I don't know which segments will make up Orange, though if VTA has chosen a single place to put Orange on a sign in prepping the future for BART SV, Baypointe station is a good choice).

We can look for more VTA Orange line signs or we can ask VTA to more clearly articulate its (BART SV route change plans), maybe both; that would be a two-pronged approach to get to the bottom of this. Sorry to be confused, it's like having two watches and not knowing what time it really is. Basically, "any help appreciated" and I'm looking around for answers myself (VTA's web site, BART's website, maybe...). I haven't tagged anything Orange...yet. Kinda wrapping my head around the future, really, as I'm surprised to see VTA putting Orange on light_rail signage this far before BART SV.

I add my voice to Mateusz that we use name=* as we document it our wiki. And to and to Martijn's that if there is a wiki that keeps track of (or does its best to do so, as there is in this case) something like the status of a transit network, a state's railroads, a collection/tables of motorways/highways at a political level, etc., that before sweeping changes are made, these wiki should be consulted, followed and updated when required. Thank you.

OK, I sorta get it. Thanks, Steve.

Much has happened since 2008-9 when SCC's Countywide Bike Plan (CBP) was adopted, including a lot of work in 2016-7 to revise the CBP. I've just taken a look at that (and probably should have a year or three ago) and also find a dearth of bicycle route numbers on many of the related documents. I'm not sure what's up with that, though if you are seeing "11" on signs in Mapillary, these network=lcn routes do "still" seem to be around. I'm going to spend some time poking around "what's up" with these, perhaps I'll have more to say later. Though this discussion is getting long; perhaps I'll private missive you with what I learn. Thanks again for "waking up" some apparently needed attention and good communication about updating various sorts of routes around here.

I've been "watching" as VTA prepares for BART and "going to orange," but yours (above) is the first confirmation that I've seen (either on a map, not a planning map, an actual route map) that there really is an "orange" right now. So, thanks for that, I did not know VTA had started doing either "orange" or putting colors on signs like they're doing. Thanks for your great communication!

(BTW, I agree with all you say about "planning documents" and unsigned_ref. True, dat.)

Thanks for your answer: ground-truth bolstered by Mapillary and OSC images. Wow, not only bike route signs, but BEGIN and END signs for them, too! (I'm impressed with VTA for being so complete with its signage).

I don't want to sound publicly contentious, but when you say you're considering removing routes which aren't signposted, that seems a very (overly?) strict application of our on-the-ground rule. There are plenty of routes (and boundaries) in OSM which are not well signed (or even signed at all). Does OSM really want to remove them all? Do we want a map devoid of routes (and boundaries) which aren't clearly marked on-the-ground?

Have we settled whether or not if VTA (or any government) "publishes" a route (in written form, for example, declaring its existence) but hasn't signposted it, that route doesn't belong in OSM?

What about VTA's light_rail routes? Those aren't signed "green" or "blue" along the train routes, yet we agree those routes with color designations should be in OSM. How do we know what color and composition are the routes? VTA publishes those, they don't signpost them on-the-ground. I wonder where the determination is made about routes (or boundaries) when they can't be seen on-the-ground, but "everybody knows" (due to the publication of geo data or public-domain maps) where those routes (or boundaries) are. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts.

Nasty storm recently. I'm weathering it OK.

What is your source for the lcn 11 extensions along Monterey Highway? I'm not doubting you, more like fumbling myself for a good/recent source for those data and I wasn't sure I saw it in your tagging/source comments.

Though there are four layers listed in imagery_used, I don't know if you are seeing city bike route signs in those, are using an online map I might not know has recently updated, or what. I didn't know of such "double-routing" (lcn 01, parts of lcn 17 and lcn 11 sharing common infrastructure). Thanks.

The map and I appreciate it. Thanks!

Of course, "rode" them yourself. Almost a pun!

I don't doubt these are bicycle routes. However, they might be "private" routes, it looks like ADC (ADCT?) publishes them, perhaps under copyright. If so, you'd need permission and/or a clear ODbL (OSM's license) grant to enter the route data, unless you road them yourself (e.g. capturing GPX tracks on a GPS).

Also, the one that is tagged network=ncn is not correct. ncn is reserved for USBRs (national, public routes in the USBRS; see our wiki). I'm not sure if these do fit into a network, as those are usually public (national, state/regional, local means county or city) because private routes like these aren't signed. (In rare cases, they might be, like mtn bike routes on an expansive campground area, or numbered routes in a big office park like a movie studio).

Please see osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks where at most, such route networks are lcn (local cycleway network). The rcn are for state routes (in USA) and ncn for USBRS. But I think that the network=* tags on these need to be edited, I'm not sure how exactly without knowing more about the network (public, private...).

Happy to share with you what I know about this, please reply with any questions you may have. Thanks.

I've deleted the tag.

It is an abbreviation from the Santa Cruz County GIS Department's Zoning.zip file (details in the SCC wiki) for "Park." But in my experience, especially recently, these map logically map much less well to what OSM considers leisure=park. The tag can be deleted, and in fact, it has been my practice since v3 to reduce such superfluous tags in OSM data by deleting them (I don't always, I'm getting better). However, much work to do so remains. I'd say the map is in a "reduction to eventual elimination" phase of these tags being in OSM.

In changeset/69743537, I conflated tags from the node (GNIS import) to the way representing the amenity, deleted the node, then stripped superfluous tags from BOTH the GNIS import and Nathan's (nmixter's) import off of the way representing the amenity boundary. So, no more duplication.

This guy needs a new hobby.

I have nothing good to say here, so I'll say nothing at all.

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.