Adamant1 (2022-01-30 04:03:41+00:00): <A local community of one does not own any part of the map; that’s not how OpenStreetMap works.

I never said it did. Although when it was purely SteveA's opinions about how to map things in Santa Cruz I was more then willing to refer to it. Obviously me saying "Sorry SteveA, but A local community of one does not own any part of the map" wouldn't have led to me getting my way. I actually said it a few times at the time and it didn't. Rightly so, because it's not a good argument and just comes off like deflecting from what the discussion is actually about, why your way of tagging the roads is the better way to tag them.  If the only reason I've heard so is along those lines though then I'm going to be inclined to think you and btwhite92 don't actually have a good reason why your way of tagging is the better one. I haven't seen one in the proposal. It's not like I didn't look or try to suse a good reason out of both of you as to why the roads should be tagged as trunk roads, but at the same time I'm not going to have an endless discussion about it or just be like "sure, whatever. Do it your way even though it literally makes zero sense." GI rather see this resolved in us endlessly bickering back and forth about it and the best way to do it IMO is to defer to local mapper. Which in this case happens to be me, but I'd make the same argument even if it wasn't. Otherwise, we are just beating a dead horse. I'm not going to agree with btwhite92 and he's not going to agree with me. So there's only to ways to do it, his way or mine. Neither of those is discussing it endlessly. I say follow the local mapper rule and go with my way. 

<You may also recall that I’ve previously defended your right to make edits in another part of the country that one local mapper disagreed with, in a changeset discussion that got heated very quickly.

I do recall that and I have a lot of respect for your being level headed and fair in disagreements, but we are at an impasse here and IMO the best way to resolve it would be just to defer to the local mapper. Since the standard I've had to abide by in the past. I'm not insulting you by saying so though, but I do think there's a point where people should have to just suck it up, accept that they aren't going to get their way sometimes, and allow for there to be a few exceptions to the rules. This discussion has gone on for multiple days, none of agree, and it's not going anywhere. So I think it's at that point. 

<Decisions about how to map should be based on the merits

Sure, but you and btwhite92 haven't provided any. btwhite92 is going off about his friends in Reno and your saying the roads should be tagged as trunk roads so they will be rendered at high levels on some imagery map. I don't see any merit in either of those reasons to tag the roads as trunk roads. 

<A local mapper can inform the discussion with much-needed local knowledge, but that’s different than being a final authority.

I agree that should be the standard. It never is in the real world though. 

<I wish you no ill will.

I wish you no ill will either SteveA. I never claimed to be the best, or even an efficient communicator. Which is why I mostly stay out of discussions unless it's something like this. I much rather just map and leave the mindless minutia when it comes to types of things to other people. 99% of the time that's exactly what I do. In the meantime, we clearly have different strategies for resolving issues. I discuss them, although in an admittedly convoluted way a lot of the time. Whereas, you threaten to sue people and say your going to stomp them to death like a mouse, and call them narcissistic trolls. To each his own. That said, I'm more then willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you saying "I'm an elephant, your a mouse, and I'm going to stomp you to death" was just a euphemism for something else and a big miss-understanding. Same goes for the legal threats. Although it is interesting that you say OSM isn't about who you know when you sent me a bunch of messages once about how friendly you are with DWG members and what they told you they were going to do to me. I guess it's not about who I know, just who you do. But we should really leave it at that. I don't really feel like rehashing things. 

 <We're all in this together.

Sure dude. Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you sleep better at night. In the meantime no one here disagrees that this is a community based project. I spent like 2 days discussing this for a reason and it wasn't because I thought I own the map in this area. Maybe show a little more respect toward the time and effort I've put into this.

<A1 felt like they weren't treated fairly, that they would use that as motivation to act better rather than use it as an excuse to do the same to others.

I'm not using this as an excuse to do the same thing SteveA did to me. There's plenty of examples of people doing bad mapping in Shasta County that I left alone and never took issue with or reverted, but they were local mappers and new contributors. So in no way do I just treat people unfairly because of how I've been treated. I just think if there's going to be a standard that local mappers have final say then we all follow it, or not. I don't ultimately care, but we shouldn't apply it completely arbitrarily, only in situations that serve us, but ignore it in others. That's it. In the meantime I'm more then willing to allow outsiders to re-tag things in Shasta County. I've discussed this with you for multiple days now, I've literally said 299/44 could be kept as trunk roads, and made multiple recommendations where the best place to not tag 299 as a trunk anymore would be. So in no way am I drawing a hard line here just to treat you unfairly or own the map in this area. It's ridiculous that I'm being treated like I am when I said multiple times that I agree and am fine with how you tagged 299/44. So give me a little more credit dude.