piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
commented by Adamant1 (2019-03-10 04:39:10+00:00): Kind of like closing peoples notes when you don't know jack about them and saying they are "unhelpful"? 

I'm glad your not a Pokemon Go Troll, but if not, you should really stop being so jumpy when it comes to resolving notes that involve parks. There's no hurry and these things are meant for discussion. It's cool you have done all that also, but it doesn't give you superior knowledge or the right to act superior. Ultimately, accolades and accomplishment's don't mean crap here. Plus, Cartography and computer programming are sciences. They aren't popularity contests. We are all equal. 

Again, your counties definition of a tag doesn't circumvent OSM tagging standards. Especially when it comes to parks. There's been plenty of similar situations to this in California where OSM admins deleted the park tags on coastal beaches because they didn't fit the definition of the park. I'm fine contacting them to see if it can be done here also if need be.
commented by stevea (2019-03-10 05:16:11+00:00): ("County's" definition, possesive case, not "counties" plural).  I'm not saying I'm "superior" I'm saying I know of what I speak.  What I see here (and in other Notes of yours) is that you aren't specific about what is wrong, you largely say "something is wrong here."  Perhaps that is your habit (and prerogative) of "bookmarking" that something ought to be looked at, but "doesn't look right" really doesn't give anybody else (except you) a way to move things forward with improvement.

As we define what and how we do things locally in our county wiki, perhaps we don't circumvent them, we actually enhance them.  Have you (and others in your county) like me (and others in my county) been awarded a bestofosm.org award for "nearly perfect landuse?"  I know you poo-poo accolades, but I wonder upon what you are basing your "local knowledge," which often trumps armchair mappers from afar who vaguely complain without any constructiveness in their criticism.
commented by  (2019-03-10 06:34:48+00:00): Stevea, I private messaged you. I rather not go back and forth attacking each other in notes. Its not really what they are for.
closed by stevea (2019-03-19 07:51:38+00:00): If only OSM necessarily over-simplistic definitions of leisure=park, natural=beach were as you describe them, this would be as clear as you wish to make it.  Unfortunately, they're  not.

Our wiki's COMPLETE definition of "park" (you paraphrase and exercise a faulty concission, omitting crucial information, I do not) is:

"A park is an area of open space provided for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes."

Leaning upon the word "usually," and considering that this county's quarter-million people define it thusly, this beach is a park.  It IS both (they can be both; beaches can be parks, parks can be beaches), as OSM defines both and as they exist in the real world as people and dictionaries define each word.  Not leaving room for these semantics to overlap is short-sighted and ignores the flexibility built into OSM's definitions (and "what people say").

So, contrary to your false assertion above, "not both" (a beach and a park) is incorrect.

Our county defines wooded areas, grassy areas with "municipal improvements," beaches, rocky geological outcroppings and more as "parks."  A further wiki definition of "park" is that "Parks are often but not always municipal."  I'm prepared to define city and county parks as "municipal," yet even here, the wiki's definition allows for wiggle room with "often but not always."  Few things in OSM are as absolute as you appear to wish to make them.

I will refrain from making snide comments (as you do) about people with "only" three years in OSM.

I have split this into two polygons here, part with a leisure (+park) tag the remainder with a natural (=beach) tag.  OSM will not object to such improvements, nor will local volunteers, the Carto renderer, neither will what you might believe to be many other places (including in this county) with similar improvements have any objection.  Such would have been the original remedy without your disagreeable vitriol.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-03-19 10:28:53+00:00): Couldn't resist taking unnecessary potshots at me in the notes instead of just waiting for me to reply to you in a private message like I said I would huh? Nice. I was perfectly willing to be reasonable and discuss it. Your obviously not though and rather just boss people around and tell them to do instead. that's I do things. The only person here being snide and vitriolic is you. Maybe if you had of chilled the hell and had some patience we could have met half way on things. I'm not going to put the effort into it now though. Your clearly not worth wasting my time on. So don't be surprised if "your" parks around here turn into beaches and visa versa. I'm not going to be told what to do or insulted in notes. I'll also back up every edit I do with evidence, supporting maps, and tagging guidelines. Have fun blowing hot air like a self entitled, pompous, childish brat in the meantime. Since that's all you seem to be capable of. If you screw with me, my edits, or my notes again, I'll report you to the DWG. I don't care how many people from the American DWG stroke your ego in Airports about how great you are. Feel free to report me to if you have a problem anything I do. I'll talk to the DWG any day of the week instead of hiding behind my fake accomplishments and vanity awards like you do.
closed by stevea (2019-03-19 10:46:45+00:00): Tell the DWG whatever you want.  I know them, they know me.  I've had plenty of interaction with them over the decade I've been a respected volunteer in this project.

There is nothing I have done that merits any action by the DWG, but if you wish to blow a whistle on me, feel free to waste your time.

I WAS meeting you half way by "blending" this polygon into part-park / part-beach, per your request.  However, your exceedingly vague "something is wrong here" and months-and-months delays in doing anything lead me (and others) to do something with your Notes, which, after all, are not your private bookmarks, but are literally "Notes" to the map.

Your takeaway:  leave useful Notes with specific problems so that others may "remedy" them (if indeed there is something wrong).  We are not mind-readers and clear communication is what allows a better map to happen.  Hurling insults (I haven't, you have) or potshots (I haven't, you have).  I'm not "screwing with you," I'm making a better map.  If you wish to do so, follow our guidelines by clearly communicating and avoiding invective and you might catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

(You misunderstand "the DWG stroking my ego in airports, but it doesn't matter).  I have no reason to report you, only to say to you that you have a long way to go in adjusting your attitude so that you are well-respected (at least by this mapper).  You also got wrong "fake accomplishments (Mapper of the Month is no such thing) and "vanity accomplishment" as you mentioned it in private missive:  BestOfOSM.org is not is what you say of OSM-US "badly in need of members. So they will do what it takes to get people to join or stay members" (OSM-US and the people who publish BestOfOSM have little if anything to do with one another).

Good luck to you, Mr. Ant.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-03-19 11:02:22+00:00): 1. I don't care who know. I know them to. Its a matter of if your  breaking the rules and harassment me or not. Nothing more, nothing less. Closing notes with hateful, angry messages about me at 3am after I said I rather discuss it in a private message is border line. I change something based on it is on the ground and how the city says it should be and you change it back, that is borderline also. That's I'm saying. You have repeatedly resolved notes I asked you keep open because I would wanted to review them I had the time. It might not be against the rules per say, but its pretty disrespectful and just escalates things unnecessarily. Whatever you think about the merits of a note or not, I asked you to leave them and they are my notes. There's no rush or rule that they have to be closed. Its just you deciding to do something that you were asked not to. Unless you just don't want your Pokemon Go buddies to see them. Which I can understand ;)

2. I have no problem with the polygon whatever and I'm not even sure what your talking about. It hasn't been months-and-months either. We just discussed it like a week ago and we all have lives. I don't have to things just because you snap your fingers and say to. Plus, again, there's no time limit for notes. Some of them have been around for years. 

3. Your the only one doing things with my notes. So don't speak for other people. They can speak for themselves if they feel like it. Its really pretentious otherwise. 

4. There is no "we" its just you freaking out about a couple of notes that you think are to vague and resolving them with angry responses. Again, don't speak for other people. Its pretentious. Something I really hate, because its pretentious ;) Also, don't me what I should take away from things. Again, its pretentious. 

5. Miss-tagging things and not tagging things how they should tagged isn't "making a better map" you can keep repeating it like your fundamentalist in a religious cult all you want
commented by Adamant1 (2019-03-19 11:08:45+00:00): But it doesn't make it true. The fact that you keep repeating it instead of providing supporting evidence like I have for everything I've done just goes to show how full of it and unreasonable you are. Show some evidence for why your correct and leave it at that. Its not that hard. Your rather go off on back patting self aggrandizing rants, and that's fine. Its just not my thing. I'm more into science and reality.  

6. I don't have a long way to go to adjust my attitude, because 1. I don't have one 2. I don't care about being well-respected. I'm just here to map. That's it. I don't give two craps about doing this for a popularity contest or be patted on the back by others about my accomplishments. I don't care if you do, but don't drag me through the dirt and say I need an attitude adjustment just because we have different priorities. 

Now go sober up, ride your scooter around, play some Pokemon Go in the morning with your junior high buddies, and chill the heck out.
closed by stevea (2019-03-19 11:23:00+00:00): I have broken no rules.  I have no idea why you think I have anything to do with Pokemon Go (which I have spent considerable time chasing away in OSM as a major annoyance in our map), except for the reason to either annoy or insult me, your emojis notwithstanding.

I neither break rules nor harass and I actually extend great patience to "stay on the high road" as I "turn the other cheek" at your frequent insults (you seem to not be able to write any missive here without multiple insults).  There is no anger and certainly no "hate" in my messages, that is simply hyperbole on your part.

It matters not who does what with whose notes:  when a Note is written, it (like everything in this project) is "out there," public.  I am not snapping my fingers, do not demand immediate action, as you falsely assert. I map at all hours of the day and night, nothing wrong with that.  I never claim to speak for anybody but myself.  "Freaking out" is you exaggerating, plain and simple.  Nothing I have done is pretentious; I do not pretend to have talents besides those I actually do.  (BTW, you have talents, we all have talents.  Trying to impress someone with talents we DON'T have is being pretentious; I do no such thing).

There is no tone of or actual anger in my words here.  You might take them that way, although you would be mistaken that that is how I mean them.  Hate is a very strong word and is seldom if ever in my vocabulary and certainly never found in my disposition nor my actions.

"Fundamentalist in a religious cult" speaks for itself:  needless vituperation calculated to heap invective when none is deserved.

Good luck to you, Mr. Ant.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-03-19 11:28:16+00:00): Btw, I said organizations in general give out awards to retain and draw in members, especially none profits. Its not unique to OSM USA and I didn't say it was. I didn't say it was an issue either. Its just how institutions work generally. I'm not sure why its even note worthy here. I guess it just shows the level your own. Anyway, enjoy your Pokemon Go game ;) 

P.S. I don't need these notes. I only opened them to get opinions on things from other people before changing them. If the opinions are going to be on your level though, I'll just change things without consulting people around here from now on. Its not like I have to ask people for permission to edit things. It was mostly just a courtesy. So feel free to close them if you want. To bad you burned that bridge.
closed by stevea (2019-03-19 11:48:11+00:00): It is certainly not my intention to burn bridges, although if limiting to zero the communication I have with vague, ambiguous comments turning into not fruitful discussion aimed at improving the map through reasonable dialog and consensus instead becomes a churlish gutter-fight of almost laughable insults, well, I'm happy to be rid of it.

My "level," to clarify, is somewhere between intermediate and advanced on these topics and in this context.  I am intelligent, articulate, patient, passionate about high-quality data entering the map and many are happy to engage with me as I often offer deep and fresh perspective to the issues at hand.  I also strive mightily to keep my listening skills sharp and fully front and center  If, on the other hand, "don't bother you with such a shared polity, since you've got your mind made up about how you're going to do things no matter what..." well, I'll wish you one more time:  good luck.

I encourage you to consult others, even me; I don't "burn the bridge," even as you might.  However, please drop the insults and you  might fund you actually get somewhere.
opened by Adamant1 (2018-07-07 22:19:37+00:00): Bad park tagging and areas mapped over each other multiple times with horrible over lap around here should be dealt with.
commented by  (2019-04-25 19:58:16+00:00): I suggest you contact user:gooney and ask what s/he was thinking by adding this.  It might have been an imagery trace, but it's a pretty sloppy one and could be deleted in my opinion (though if so, should be replaced by a more-accurate natural=beach polygon).

There is an existing multipolygon for the "city owned park" (which also has a natural=beach tag, "stacking tags" as you don't like, but which roughly does describe the beach while also accurately capturing that this is apart with amenities (restrooms, showers, recreation opportunities in an urban area...).  The river mouth area (up to and south of the bridge) is a weird thing to include in the beach area, so tag this as you see appropriate.  I do believe it is correct to keep the leisure=park on relation/7062591 (the city park multipolygon), but gooney's natural=beach polygon needs replacement/redrawing and then the beach tag needs to be deleted from 7062591.
commented by stevea (2019-04-25 23:24:52+00:00): Not "apart" but "a park" (with amenities).
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-26 08:19:19+00:00): Alright. I'll do it when I get the time. Thanks for the suggestions. If you don't mind, I'll leave the note open until it's done for reference. Maybe you can look it over when it's done to see if you think it's correct also.
commented by stevea (2019-04-26 19:12:48+00:00): Sounds good.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 03:59:07+00:00): What do you think about the Capitola Beach relation to the right of the park? It seems like the "beach" kind of disappears at the corner of said park. My money is on delete, but who am I to make that call? It seems like the cliff needs be adjusted also. 

Btw, it seems at though Soquel Creek Park a little further up Soquel Creek is mapped in the middle of the waterway. I doubt people are hanging out there being leisurely. It looks like a wood also on the bank. Do you think the park is only the small separate, un named area south of the railroad tracks and it's miss mapping? Or should the area be re-mapped where the trees are along the bank?
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 06:08:28+00:00): Perhaps I'll have more to say on Monday; I'm exhausted.  Glad to see you are remaining engaged.
commented by  (2019-04-28 07:31:06+00:00): OK. Fine. Thanks. You to.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 22:46:32+00:00): Yes, people are "hanging out" up the creek and being leisurely, there is paddle-boat renting on this stretch of Soquel Creek.  The weekend of the Begonia Festival (in addition to there being a LOT of begonias in this part of the river, sort of a "dress up the park" thing) you can hardly get around here, ESPECIALLY on this part of the river.  You can hardly slide a butterknife between people it's so densely packed.

I've been tap-tapping around here, beefing up your retail area (thank you) by adding buildings, trimming some of the landuse=residential and neighborhood polygons you added (thank you) so that they fit against the railway, CPAD polygons (a new one was added just west of Capitola Beach, NE of Hooper Beach — I don't know if Hooper is lifeguarded by Capitola or County Parks Department.

It is looking nicer, cleaner lines, CPAD is now as sharp as a tack, I demultipolygonized a couple of things so there wouldn't be "stacking" of natural=beach onto a leisure=park (as is now done on Esplanade Park and Esplanade Park Beach) and I straightened/re-aligned the long natural cliff S and E of Esplanade Park (below Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue footway) as it was way off the mark.

It is looking better, I'll call this pretty darn good collaboration between us.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 22:50:27+00:00): Whoops, "as WAS done on Esplanade Park" and its Beach; stacking of beach and park is something I'm avoiding on new and unsticky-fying as I see it, sometimes it needs demultipolygonization, sometimes not.
closed by stevea (2019-04-29 09:14:31+00:00): No reason to keep this open.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 01:00:45+00:00): Thanks for the coperation on this. Hopefully there can more of it, and less of your current note tirading.
opened by Gaston Bolduc (2018-07-07 22:23:29+00:00): ya une erreur sur la carte il dis que je suis en Ontario mes c faut je suis a st-jean-de-brebeuf Quebec 1057 route 267 G6G 0A1
opened by Adamant1 (2018-07-07 22:24:58+00:00): Parks and name tagging here need to be reviewed
closed by stevea (2019-03-09 10:01:34+00:00): OK, I have reviewed them and find them to be fine.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-03-10 04:10:32+00:00): Really? Basic observation would show that New Brighton State Beach (made up of the green) overlaps Potbelly Beach (made up of the name tag). The beach is either New Brighton State Beach or Potbelly Beach. Its not both.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-03-10 04:10:36+00:00): Really? Basic observation would show that New Brighton State Beach (made up of the green) overlaps Potbelly Beach (made up of the name tag). The beach is either New Brighton State Beach or Potbelly Beach. Its not both.
closed by stevea (2019-04-08 19:13:08+00:00): Yes, this is how Carto renders (park over beach).  The tagging is correct, it appears you simply don't like the way it renders.

Again, there is nothing wrong (with the data) here.  The "basic observation" being made is that "Carto renders park over beach."  As the boundaries of both the park and the beach are correct, this is what we get.

File a bug (or feature request) on Carto at GitHub if you like, but this deserves to be Resolved.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-04-09 07:10:46+00:00): Again, if you had any scruples and actually read the note instead of going off on a personal side about what I do or don't like, of which you know zero about, you would have noticed that I said the issue was that the parks OVERLAPPED. That has nothing to do with rendering. If Pot Belly Beach is inside of New Brighton State Beach, cool. I was just asking so that if not they could be separated. Sometimes things overlap accidentally. Especially parks, but don't put words in my mouth and condensed to about how if I don't like the way something looks I can file a bug with Carto. Its disingenuous and has ZERO to do with why I opened the note in the first place.  

Also, btw I spent 2 years doing development for the style recently. So I know plenty about it and how it works. Thanks though. Save it next time and actually read the note before commenting.
opened by josmougn (2018-07-07 22:25:40+00:00): verifier ces acces parkings apres travaux échangeur
closed by josmougn (2018-07-08 22:20:48+00:00): revu
opened by Adamant1 (2018-07-07 22:27:41+00:00): Is this Sea Cliff State Beach or Rio Del Mar Beach?
commented by  (2019-04-25 20:15:48+00:00): Both.  It is "called" Rio Del Mar Beach as a section of a state beach called Seacliff State Beach.  Locals distinguish like this to disambiguate the southern entrance/access (RDM) from the northern (State Park Drive/Las Olas Drive) entrance/access.
closed by stevea (2019-04-29 09:15:14+00:00): Asked and answered.  No reason to keep this open any longer.  Resolving.
opened by Adamant1 (2018-07-07 22:28:51+00:00): Beach/park inception needs to be dealt with here and proper tags need to be used.
commented by stevea (2019-03-09 10:04:03+00:00): Can you be more specific?
commented by Adamant1 (2019-03-10 04:05:18+00:00): 8 month's later, probably not ;) Given it a quick glance though, 1. Beaches are suppose to be tagged with their tags, because (to put it in simple terms) beaches have sand and parks have grass. So beaches aren't parks under the OSM definition. 2. there's two smaller beaches/parks mapped inside the larger Dolphin/Sumner Beach area. Which there shouldn't be. Its either those smaller parks/beaches or its the bigger one. It's not both. You could have found that out pretty easily on your own. I find it surprising for someone with 15,000 edits that you don't know the difference between the park and beach tags.
commented by stevea (2019-03-19 08:09:28+00:00): Mr. Ant, the county (and I) call these beaches and parks don't "have to" have grass.  (They often do, the wiki definition says they "usually" do, but that isn't "always").

You could have found out the history of these polygons and local conventions here by reading our wiki page and toning down your snarky tone.

If you don't know the difference between landUSE and landCOVER (a long-standing, not-going-to-be-solved-anytime-soon raging debate in OSM since, forever) I am not surprised, but then I'm nowhere near as rude as you.  So, add (don't replace) a natural=beach tag on a polygon where you think one needs to be superimposed upon the leisure=park polygon (just as you would with a parking lot or playground) and be done with your complaining already, please.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-03-19 10:31:11+00:00): Your the only complaining. As I said in my other note, piss off and don't harass me with your fake none sense and made up BS anymore or I'll report to the DWG. Don't screw with my edits, or notes anymore either.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-03-19 10:32:32+00:00): I have respect or time for self entitled pompous, people like you. Its no wonder people from Europe hate dealing with Americans on here. People you are a perfect example of it.
opened by honore-f (2018-07-07 22:29:19+00:00): création d'un nouveau rond point t

via StreetComplete 6.0
opened by honore-f (2018-07-07 22:29:19+00:00): construction d'un rond point

via StreetComplete 6.0
opened by Adamant1 (2018-07-07 22:29:57+00:00): Anyone know what the actual boundary of this park/beach whatever is and how far inland it actually goes?
commented by Adamant1 (2018-07-07 22:30:28+00:00): or along the coast south for that matter