OK, that makes sense, thanks for your comment. (Although the road still IS there and OSM likely benefits most when it actually DOES disappear).

I also messaged user:adelman (Ken) and he says he was just out there today and is going to do an edit soon as "I think the correct disposition of the old trail is to disconnect and delete the first 20ft from each end of the two sections, leaving the rest intact. Those areas of the old road are covered in brush and clearly “decommissioned”. Based on ground truthing today."

So let's wait for his edits. If the roughly-parallel "Englesman Loop" is bicycle-friendly, it can be used to restore connectivity to CycleNet mtb/lcn route 122M, which I'll do after I see Ken's edits and he gets back to me whether the Loop (not the old fire road) is bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated. Thanks.

Please replace this trail: it exists, it simply has been set to access=no in the park. It is an old fire road, really is there, and was tagged properly by user:adelman with access=no properly a week or two ago.

Thank you!

Please undo what you did here: there are already VTA light_rail routes in OSM AND their underlying infrastructure (which these were, but are no longer due to your tagging). Did you check first before entering these? Please see our wiki at osm.wiki/California/Railroads). Also see osm.wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways which explains the difference between types of railway routes (route=railway and route=train/tram/light_rail).

These are route=railway routes (sometimes known as "underlying infrastructure"), not the passenger routes (route=trail or route=light_rail routes), which also already exist for VTA routes. It was correct for them to not have ref numbers (which only go on passenger routes, not the underlying infrastructure relations) and it was correct for them to be route=railway, not be converted into route=light_rail.

If you don't know how to correct these relations back to how they were, your changeset can be redacted in whole, which might be easier.

Offering you encouragement on nice work so far; keep it up!

Thank you for sharing your opinion of how you tag your own neighborhood, Leif.

Ian, Andy and community: really, all I wish to do is fully answer the question(s) and move on.

Wow, Ian. I am polite, conciliatory, answer questions, say please and thank you, and try not to sound strident as I dialog. Without actually saying I am confrontational, you hint that I was. I don't characterize this dialog as confrontational, though what you might detect is my frustration that I don't believe I've done anything wrong here, have bent over backwards to explain, yet this has drip-drip-dripped for a week. Honestly, it feels like I am being badgered.

Nobody says I've done anything wrong, it is simply hinted at (or is it?). Nobody says my behavior IS confrontational, it is simply stated that "there is no need." I know that, I actually don't like confrontation. I simply want to know what the problem is (if any) or if this is a misunderstanding, a lack of semantic clarity in our landuse tagging values, or what. Yet I don't get answers while I answer changing questions. In a real dialog, that would frustrate anybody. I continue to make myself available to answer questions, as that is the right thing to do, but please understand that everybody's patience exhausts and my frustration is up (as I don't understand what this is).

To snap back to the beginning (and I repeat myself): "Is it really all farmland in OSM terms?" Answer: Yes. "The imagery suggests that it looks like..." Reply: "'The imagery suggests' is a not-wholly-sufficient criterion for making a determination of landuse. It is one criterion among many, but these lands are agricultural landuse: the owners say so, public records reflect that, I've seen myriad kinds of farming activity here with my own eyes on-the-ground..., hence farmland."

Are there superior data (locally sourced, contradictory to or improvements upon what I have entered...) which might replace these 'first-draft' data? Well, yes, I have micro-mapped vineyards, orchards, greenhouse_horticulture where I see them. Of course, I invite you or others to contribute further improvements to these data. But to assert (and I'm not truly sure Andy has, part of my frustration) that this isn't farmland simply invites discussion. Yet despite my efforts to weave my way through this, if I were a lawyer/barrister I would say, "Asked and answered." Yes?

Yes, that's correct, but a permit to chop down trees is not the defining criterion, simply one of them. OSM's "landuse=forestry" is a mess (at least 7 approaches worldwide, we largely hew to what our wiki defines Approach 3 around here). Here, landuse=farmland has what I'd call a "generous" or "elastic" application of its definition that includes everything from mushroom cultivation to gathering acorns to make nut butter to growing herbs for aromatherapy to llama ranches. So, just because you "see in imagery" what look like "mostly trees" doesn't mean that the land isn't farmland as OSM defines it: it is.

Please answer whether I have done something wrong here (and my other questions), this back-and-forth feels like a thesis defense, except you keep changing your questions and don't answer mine.

As described at osm.wiki/Contributors#California, no license is needed. It is illegal in California to place a license on "public record" data. Therefore the data are freely available to OSM and always have been.

"What they are" are described and linked to at the county /Archive page. They were (in 2009) a poorly-uploaded dataset which over many years were improved to be a corrected and updated version of those data. They continue to be updated and corrected even today, as the data have both updated and been corrupted by other contributors (inadvertently "smeared" by several meters, truncated or fouled because of joined nodes while dragged, etc.). Where and as superior data are known and uploaded, either the tags showing SCCGIS as source data are deleted, the older data are replaced or both.

The wikis (including the Landuse Archive) make it clear that these data are in no way meant to preclude the upload of superior data, and in fact in many cases this is exactly what is happening, and older, inferior data "fall away" as they are replaced by better data. This is identical to how TIGER data for roads and rail get replaced by superior data all across the USA.

However, the wiki also states "Wholesale removal of the SCCGIS data without such improvement is regressive to OSM's overall data content, so contributors are encouraged to UPDATE, ADD and IMPROVE data here, where as superior data supersede SCCGIS data, the older data can be removed."

There are also chicken coops (and grain-scatter areas for them to free-range), hog pens (ditto), llama ranches, and ostrich enclosures here (yes, I've eaten at the Ostrich Grill in Capitola; they source their ostrich locally).

As landuse=farmland includes (from our wiki) "wide open space for grazing animals" I wanted to assure you that both plant-based agriculture and animal-based farming both take place here.

Oh, Andy, my goodness; that old trick. My sentences are complete and grammatical. I recently had another volunteer read this thread and he had no trouble following it.

Inside it, the owners can and do fell timber. When those trees are down, they plant more trees. This is called landuse=forest.

Outside it, the owners can and do fell timber after they obtain a timber permit, then they often (and this is the reason the DID cut the trees) develop the farmland from felled trees into orchards, vineyards, greenhouse_horiticulture, apiaries and container farming (berries, tomatoes...). Some keep trees up to harvest acorns, dissolving out the tannin and making a kind of "oak meal" (I'll see if I can find the folks at the farmer's market who are awaiting for organic certification for that). Some live on the land while farming it, some simply farm it, living elsewhere. This is called landuse=farmland.

I tag what I observe. OSM doesn't have a good landuse tag of something like "live_on_farmland" which is what these largely are (though aren't exclusively, as some farm these lands without living here, I'm not perfectly sure which).

Please answer: Have I done something wrong with my tagging here? Or are you simply suggesting that I might have?

Please answer: Are OSM's landuse tag values too simplistic to well accommodate the complex kind of landuse this is? (Hint: I think so, but I haven't proposed a new tag, so I use the ones we have and try to supplement them as best I can).

Please answer: Can you see bees in visual imagery?

Please tag: the polygon(s) with better values if you actually know what it (they) should be and assert them.

How would you tag this if you don't have the time (or access) to micromap land uses within the observed area? Is there a way for me to map my observations without needing to conduct further research?

Continuing a trend around here, I've changed the shopping center's landuse tag from commercial to retail, as that is a more precise tag. (Commercial might be "office parks" or similar, but shopping centers like this one fit exactly the definition of "retail" in our wiki).

"Done for now" around here!

No, that is not what I am saying; it isn't local government, it is the property owners. Would you re-tag this area to something else, which would in effect say "I'm asserting away these property rights and agricultural activities by tagging based on what I can see, rather than what the owners of this property do or can do?" If so, I invite you to do so, but I can discover no such appropriate tags, so I have tagged as best I can — and continue to do so as I discover more distinct and specific agricultural activity in the area: another local example of the "first draft, then improve" ethos found throughout OSM. For example, there are many apiaries in the area producing honey, too, that I have yet to map: another agricultural activity on this farmland. Can you see bees in visual imagery?

It is not that something (like farming) "does not exist" (as you say). These property owners either can or do farm here. Either timber (though some may not have the "last permit"), orchards, vineyards, greenhouse_horticulture or other. Some owners also live on this property, making it "part residential, part agricultural," yet OSM doesn't have a landuse tag for that sort of "combined landuse." Perhaps better developing that is a strategy to "fix" what you perceive as a problem here (I don't see one, though I do see room for improvement to add more specific farming, so I do as I add it when I discover it).

It may be that you are being polite or conciliatory by extending me the courtesy of not knowing, but I look at your original message: you say it "looks" a certain way, you ask "is it really...?," you say the "imagery suggests," you say what YOU "would expect round here" (why is that?), you "guess," you say "probably," you say "the edges don't correspond to any change on the imagery at all," (yet the boundaries, like many in OSM, are both real and invisible) you "suspect" (more than once). Andy, I don't "suspect," I actually know, I live here, I visit with people here (they are my neighbors and friends) and I have been to these farms, vineyards, orchards.

I believe I have answered how this land is actually used, and why I used the landuse key value of farmland to tag how the land is used. You assert that what you see in visual imagery is the only thing that defines how the land is used (which would be much better captured with a landcover or natural tag, and I use natural tags when/as appropriate). I respectfully disagree with the assertion that visual imagery is always a or the definitive criterion for what defines landuse. I certainly am aware of the "map what is" and "on the ground" tenets of our project but "what is" here is farmland, so I have tagged it as such. Correctly. Thank you for your concerns, I hope I have addressed them.

Hi Paul: node/70170520 is in Georgia, so I don't know about that. And 6468638563 is indeed the Tesla Supercharger and it looks like you tagged it properly (as I suggested, but I'm not the ultimate authority on tagging, usually our wiki is).

Somehow it looks like you deleted the shopping center polygon (landuse=commercial) but that's OK, I added it back in.

So, it all looks OK now, thanks for your addition to the map!

Steve

I appreciate the time volunteers take to answer questions in OSM, DWG included.

Ian, again, these are not tweet-length topics, they require words. Either folks have the time to engage with me in dialog, or not. I do not wish to abuse that privilege, so I continue to better endeavor toward the concision you request.

"Concision" is a technique linguist Noam Chomsky talks about which is used by communication networks, propaganda arms of governments and others which often limit the speech that is able be uttered so that only a "party line" gets through. As I am more frequently repeatedly asked to engage in concision, that's how this feels: that fully answering the question is replied to with "TL;DR." I have taken ten years to make a better map. I believe somebody can take ten minutes to have a conversation with me to continue to do so into the future, especially when I am asked a question and expected to reply to it.

I did offer another venue (besides changeset comments) to have this discussion, as it obviously needs to be had. When and where that takes place, I will use words to do so and offer my patience to others who offer their words in return — it's the least I can do.

I am respectfully patient as I wait for Andy's reply to answer my questions of "Do you agree or disagree?" and "Does that answer your questions?" He asked me questions to address his concerns and I have answered them, I believe.

Thank you.

You are quite welcome, it is my pleasure to help new users.

If you are interested in "pictures," I encourage you to learn about Mapillary and OpenStreetCam. (You probably already know that using Google Maps and its "street cam" images are not to be used in OSM, as that would violate OSM's ODbL / open database license).

I'm glad you are adding local (to me, anyway) charging_stations to OSM, especially as 1) electric cars are the FUTURE! and 2) these are in my area, and I have an electric bicycle (I charge it with solar) and one of my cars is part-electric. (Another car of mine got 53 MPG when I bought it new in 1988!) Plus, Big Sur is an smart and awesome place to put a charging station: it's quite rural, gas is expensive (at Gorda, further south, gas is often over $7 a gallon) and it's a great place to have a burger, stock up on supplies, shop the nice gift shops or take a nice hike while you wait for your batteries to charge.

If you need any help "fixing the issues," simply ask and I'll be glad to offer help.

Enjoy your future mapping!

Steve

Ah, yes, thank you for pointing out that you DID enter a node where you say. (It is node/6468638563, which you can use a browser to see with node/6468638563).

OK, so you're almost done. 1) Please remove the name=Tesla Supercharger tag from the "surrounding polygon" (the one tagged landuse=commercial), as that isn't correct, it isn't the name of the whole shopping center. (Again, I don't know if it has one, but it's OK omit a name=* tag from OSM if we don't know the name of something).

2) The node you entered isn't really correct (yet), even though it has decent address tags (and a start_date). But in order for OSM to really "know" this node as a charging_station, you'll need to add those tags I suggested above to the node. The amenity=charging_station is the most critical one to add, the others are more minor "window dressing."

As I read our charging_station wiki (and you would benefit by doing so, too, especially as you might add more of these charging stations), I don't see any subtags that logically apply to the other "status" things you want to enter, like Permit Found. However, the "state=proposed" tag does a good job of describing that it is "on the way soon." Also, I suggest you look up "construction" at wiki.osm.org to see how we show that things are under construction, should that be the case. (It really is important to NOT use construction tags unless construction REALLY has begun). For things like "permits, etc." those aren't really relevant to OSM, but if you like (as you discovered before, and it was helpful to me), you can use either a note=* tag or a description=* tag to tag things like that.

Good luck, have fun!

Steve

Andy, these are not tweet-length discussions. They require more than a few words, so I use them. As I address your questions, but risk (or engage in) loquacity, I recognize I may try your patience, hence my early offer of an apology, perhaps better characterized as a warning of "lengthy reply ahead." Either way, it shouldn't take anybody "all day" to read it, that's hyperbole, really, and I'm trying to stick to facts and truth and fully answer your question, not engage in hyperbole.

You again assert that "OSM doesn't care about local authority zoning." In my opinion, this is patently false, given OSM's definition of landuse and how (in many, perhaps most cases) zoning logically maps essentially directly onto OSM's definitions of landuse. Not only is that a simple semantic truth, this has been true the entire decade I've been in the project. Even as our wiki definitions of landuse have "richened up" over the years, I have seen nothing that changes that, or even a discussion close to changing that (except this one, which I characterize as a not-entirely-surprising attempt/move towards such a rule change, as I've seen these before). However, it doesn't seem to be applied map-wide, but (in this case) appears to be singled-out toward me. Worldwide, OSM would be vastly more blank than it is now if contributors hadn't entered landuse polygons which accurately describe landuse. The mere fact these may (or may not) have come from zoning data is wholly irrelevant to anything; a total red herring. Why? Because they accurately describe landuse as OSM defines it.

In your original question (first Comment) of "Is it really all farmland in OSM terms?" My answer was " Yes, it is as OSM defines it." Do you agree or disagree?

Here (succinctly) are the differences between the two areas:

On 41172401, the owners of this property have rights to "timber production" (and as I mention, appear to have done so on about 15% of it, this area of felled trees is correctly denoted natural=grassland). They have obtained a state timber permit, which tips landuse into one best described with the OSM tag "landuse=forest."

The owners of the property described by the large farmland multipolygon (adjacent to 411772401) have rights to farm their property, and some do, especially after they fell trees which would interfere with what most consider farmland (harvesting trees IS agriculture, though OSM better tags this landuse=forest as noted above). However, some have NOT obtained state forestry permits to log the trees. 99 times out of 100 they WILL be granted these permits, should they apply, especially given the zoning of their land. Some do, and orchards are planted, or vineyards are started. Some don't, leave the trees, harvest the "downed wood" (without cutting, trees do "shed branches" in wood-productive ways) while in some, not all cases, also live in residences on the property in a residential manner. This is agricultural landuse of a certain kind, similar to forestry, but not accurately described by landuse=forest (no chainsaws felling trees), so landuse=forest is distinctly not applied. AND, the use of this land as "could grow orchard, could plant vineyards, could start greenhouse_horticulture..." is also extant here, whereas on other lands (which are zoned residential or industrial, for example), this is absolutely not the case, so this agricultural distinction is captured with OSM's tag of landuse=farmland.

(The maybe-1%-of-time a timber permit is not granted is if there is an endangered species in a creek below and the logging activity would create too much silt, for example. BTW, I know this as steelhead salmon spawn in my backyard ocean-flowing creek and State Fish & Game simply draws the line at timber production on these after a fish census is taken).

Does that answer your questions? Might I ask you to answer my single question above, please? Thank you.

NeverFollow: Welcome to OSM and your first edit!

Rather than mapping the entire landuse=commercial polygon (the shopping center area) as both the name of the shopping center (that's not correct) and the name of a yet-to-exist Tesla Supercharger station, I have some suggestions. You were helpful with your description=* text, so thanks for that.

First, take the "Tesla Supercharger" name tag off the shopping center polygon. I've been to this place many times (Target, Del Taco...) but I don't know if the shopping center has a name (the entrance sign simply lists the names of the stores). It might, but if we don't know the name of something in OSM, we simply omit the name=* tag. That's OK.

Second, use a node (sometimes called a "point") to map the charging station, rather than the whole polygon of the shopping center. For the node's location, the rather precise lat-long coordinates you gave seem to indicate it will be in the far eastern lobe of parking, in the area just to the south of the building south of Del Taco. What to put on its tags? I suggest:

amenity=charging_station
name=Tesla Supercharger
state=proposed
start_date=2019
capacity=14
charging_station:output=72 kW

That's a good start. I also recommend reading our wiki at amenity=charging_station to see if there are other subtags there that might be applicable.

Map well, have fun in OSM!

Steve in Santa Cruz