stevea (2020-01-07 19:43:12+00:00): With a calm tone, I answer you.

When I say "smear," I am talking about how using JOSM (and possibly iD, I'm not sure) to edit a polygon or multipolygon member can sometimes (especially with a copy-paste) re-write the polygon anywhere from a few centimeters to about a meter or two from its previous position.  At wider zoom levels, this isn't noticeable but up close it is, and when left uncorrected, causes fairly massive misalignments (and these "ripple" the more edits there are without correction, making it worse) across an interconnected set of polygons (like landuse around here).

It is not that I do not like your edits.  (Many were fine, like adding a parking lot with solar panels, I have left these alone and effectively applaud you for them).  It is that like bdiscoe's edits, they "upset" surrounding data (because of editor error, not the human — you — who is editing them).  It simply isn't true that neither you or bdiscoe did not smear (in this sense) these polygons, he did and you did, I'm sorry to say.  Some of the blame goes on the software you use to edit, but some does go upon the human editor who is not careful to keep existing data which is largely aligned to continue to be aligned (with each other).

My edit (poorly characterized as a "mass edit") wasn't nearly as large as yours of this area in the last few days has been, as I only corrected the subset of your data which left the polygons in a "smeared" state.  To make an analogy, I simply "put the jigsaw pieces back together again so they fit," rather than leaving them with poorly-overlapping boundaries.  I wish it weren't true that editing (re-writing) polygons sometimes "smears" polygons like this, but I have seen that it does and it is an unfortunate defect in the editing program, combined with the complexity of the data in an area with tightly-fitting polygons of landuse, as we have here.

This was not a "revert" as you describe it.  (I did not use a revert command in JOSM, for example).  It was a careful examination of where your edits (and software editor) left the data in a state which was (slightly) inferior to the way they were before, and which, in my opinion, needed correcting back to the more-or-less correct state they were in.  This is what I mean by "OSM conventions:"  polygons which overlap neatly, not "sloppily" (as I get Validator errors, as you would or did if you were using JOSM with the Validator plugin when you uploaded your data).  As it appears you edit with iD most (all?) of the time, it seems likely you did not get the errors in alignment you would have were you editing with JOSM during the Validator phase, but I do, so I correct them.

Adam, I don't want to fight with you.  I have been cleaning up and improving the data from a poor and hasty import by user:nmixter over ten years ago.  Due to my efforts (though I am not alone) the landuse in Santa Cruz County has won accolades.  Just a couple of weeks ago one of the authors of Carto told me that this county has the best landuse in California in OSM and is one of the best in the USA.  When I see that others who edit around here "upset" that, it is 100% correct to continue to maintain and improve these data to that (or better) state.

I have no idea what you refer to when you say that I may not use SCCGIS Zoning data here.  That isn't true.  They are here, they are SERIOUSLY improved from their v1 state over a decade ago (their improvement up to the present v7 should be obvious), and there is no reason they should be redacted, not used, nor improved (which is exactly what I and other local editors do).  AND, the history of all this and how to do so is documented in our county wiki.

What you call "151 pages" results from the large numbers of nodes in some of these polygons.  In fact (look right below), there were two ways and one relation edited.  That's not a revert and it's not massive.  3000 nodes is the OSM limit on uploading in one changeset, so it was actually larger than this (a single edit, yes, it was significant, was very slightly split across two change sets), but I still contend that editing exactly two ways and one relation isn't massive.

Please let us strive to be harmonious in this project together.  I honest do not like contention and friction, especially in a project that gives me as much joy as OSM does.  I believe you feel the same way.