Adamant1 (2019-04-22 01:06:29+00:00): Well, I mean, not that well established and also not as specific as boundary=protected_area + class5. Which specifically says its for state parks, but whatever. The boundary=natiional_park tag says "some states" consider their parks national parks. It's not specific about which states or cites any sources for it either and outside of that one guy in New York, I'm pretty sure there isn't any. You'd think that how California actually classifies their parks would be the important thing, and last time I checked, they don't call them national parks. You even tagged it with the park:type=state_park tag. It's not both. There are also specific "national parks" in Calfornia. It would be pretty useless and defeat the purpose of calling them that if all California parks were "national parks" Otherwise, why does California even have the distinction if it's essentially worthless? Personally, I much rather trust what the California government's actual classification is then go by a two word sentence on a wiki page that can be edited by anyone or what some guy in New York does. I guess your cool with using those less reliable things though. It also makes the boundary=national_park tag completely useless if it's not exclusively being used for national parks. 

Feel free to show me a source by the California government where they classify state parks as national parks because they are "sovereign" though. I'd love to read it and find out why they even bother calling state parks state parks if that's the case. 

It's funny that you routinely go off about how one thing shouldn't be used because it's not established and there's no wide consensus on it (I.E. boundary=protected_area), but then your perfectly fine adopting a tag for something that it wasn't original intended for and is only being used for your use case by one guy in New York  (for boundary=national_parks) and your also perfectly fine with using the park:type tag, which has way less uses then boundary=protected area and was essentially shot down in the discussion about it. So it seem's like your doing a lot of picking and choosing. 

Ultimately, is it more important people are able to find what they need to on the map when they are looking for it or that you be right no matter what? I'd think you'd care more about people being able to actually find what they need to then being right. This is another situation like the beach where it's really not helpful to something different then how reality actually uses it and classifies it because it screws up people searching for the thing. That's the purpose of the map. Not to feed your sycophantic need to get your way on everything. 

I'm not sure what you've "lovingly mapped" here either. The only things mapped are a few trees and the landuse (which was probably originally added through an import). I'd hardly call that "lovingly mapped." As far as what's crappy about it, I mainly have an issue with the tagging. I also don't like the general lack of anything around here mapped except landuse. It might look pretty, but it's not what brings people to using OSM or keeps them here in my opinion. To me, it's just an easy way for the person who originally imported it to give themselves props about how much they contributed. It's always inaccurate as hell though, takes years to fix, and involves a lot of unnecessary multipolygon's that are almost impossible to parse through for average users. I much prefer hand mapped stuff and places where actual details like trash cans and benches are mapped. Especially when it comes to "parks." As I think that's what the average user likes about OSM. Not the pretty mint green park color everywhere. Making all this stuff accurate takes time precious time and resources away from mapping those things. That's just my opinion though.