piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
commented by  (2019-04-25 19:05:52+00:00): You are mistaken. This IS a "protected area" according to CPAD 2018a data (greeninfo.org), SCCGIS v5 (which calls it Zoning=PR, which means "park") and I, stevea, assert that it is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park, meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and other amenities. However, it is an "urban green space open to public recreation" and therefore does meet OSM's definition according to me. It can be accessed via a footpath near the end of Fenn Way. Please Resolve this note.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-26 01:43:10+00:00): " it is an "urban green space open to public recreation" 

So Fen Way is a private road. The place where you mapped the path is clearly someone's driveway and yard. The path you mapped goes through a planter box with some bushes and there's clearly a curb. There's no hint of it n the satellite photos where the grassy area is either and the grassy area is just some grass between and behind the yards. There's also access to any of it from Soquel Avenue and from there it appears to a gully with a good drop off. Which makes sense because of the stream. There wouldn't be a park in an extremely wooded, over grown gully that know one can get into. SCCCGIS clearly made a mistake in this case or they had intended to build a park there at one point, never did, and just didn't update the files for it. Which happens all the time and they  clearly did in other cases (as is also evidenced by the miss mapped industry area, or are you going to tell me that's accurate to and the stream/gully is an industrial zone? Like the other place, I'm fine with it being mapped as a protected area if that's what it actually is until they build a park here if it ever gets built. But you should map things that clearly don't exist because they might at some point, especially based on a single source that's obviously been inaccurate in other areas.

The fact that you mapped a clearly none existent path to support your argument clearly shows you don't have a more legitimate source to do it with. It also shows that you didn't take the time to use the tools OSM provides to confirm these things before you mapped them. It sense that you wouldn't if you're more concerned about being right then map accuracy. And in the meantime your using the SCCGIS information as a form of black and white, singular, tool of confirmation bias. Otherwise, you wouldn't map paths that clearly aren't there.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-26 01:47:18+00:00): For whatever reason, your clearly slanted towards overly wanting things to be mapped as parks. Even when they shouldn't be. I don't know why that is, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one that the path thing was just an honest mistake. Although its happened more then once now and I do thing it's unethical to path's even they do exist while a conversation is going on to try and prove something without better sources also. But these things are pretty simple to confirm. So, although I think this has already been disproved as a park If you really think it is one, go down there when you have the time and map it with mapilary. Including the people's yard where you say there's a path. Until then the park should be removed and it can remapped with the actual boundary later, if it actually turns out it is one. Your the one that supposedly drives by there all the time. So, I'm sure you can do it.
closed by stevea (2019-04-27 22:48:14+00:00): I see the path in DIgitalGlobe Premium Imagery.  Property lines on either side of it show a "clear path through" because of a cornered wall on the southerly, what looks like a curb where the pavement ends and turns into the dirt of the path, and the edge of the grass lawn of the front yard of the northerly house.

I don't know if Fenn Way is private or public, it could be either.  If you have superior data that shows it one way or the other, please tag accordingly.

The "zoned industrial" area seemed odd, as I've been to Far West Nurseries dozens of times and bought many plants there.  I've improved it with its own polygon and migrated the node tags to there.

All done here, Resolving.

Otherwise, this all looks right to me.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 00:39:18+00:00): Really? I don't. Well there might be a faint outline of one in a small area. Which could jut as easily be from the people who live there or their kids walking around to the small grassy area. It's not prove of anything. and the Street Side images are pretty clear there's a private lawn with the wooden curbs, bushes, and the resident's driveway where you mapped the path. Which contradicts you. or at least the path doesn't go into the street like you have it and just because is a path, which it's extremely unlikely there is, it doesn't mean there's a park attached to it.. If it was a path to a park, there wouldn't bushes and a wooden curb in the way with know way to get to it without going through someone's yard and no parking for people visiting the park, except a private driveway and no sign or anything saying it's a park anywhere. Plus, the path would be more visible from the images. It definitely wouldn't go through the dense trees and brush across the gully like it's currently mapped either.  

Or your saying it's a park that know one visits (due to the path being barely even visible, has no way to visit because the path you claim is attached it is in someone's side yard and you have to go through their lawn, bushes and planters through bushes to get to it, no parking because the only parking is a private space for the residence, no sign or anything else saying it's a park or anything else indicating there's anything there besides a small piece of grass between some people's yards, and that the invisible magical none existent park goes into a heavily dense and overgrown  gulch and across a stream to the other side....alrighty then. Well, you do also think the gulch is an industrial area. So...

Hey, like I said before, if your so certain it's a park just go down the private road to it, over the people's planters, over the bushes, through their side yard, down into the gully you claim people are doing recreational things in and map it with mapilary.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 00:43:34+00:00): Should be easily since you live around there and in the mean time the park can be deleted until there is actual confirmation that your right besides the slight hint of a path on someone's side yard that could be from anything and the over whelming counter evidence that it's not a park and just a patch of grass between two houses. I have no problem with re-mapping it once tress pass and go down into the gully to prove it's what you say it is. There has to be more then a faint path on a side yard for it to count when you do though.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 00:48:54+00:00): Also, unlike you, I have zero problem with it being a park or not being park. I don't ultimately care either way what it is. Outside of that it should be tagged probably and that what is on the ground fits how we map things. That's it. So go prove that it's a park so we can map it accurately instead of endlessly arguing about it. If you do, I'll 100% resolve this note and go along my marry way. 

(Although with the caveat that it still wouldn't qualify as "managed greenery" under the OSM definition of a park and thus wouldn't qualify as a park. Which, if you have a problem with your free to build consensus on, write the mailing list about, etc etc.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 00:50:08+00:00): See you in the map.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 01:35:46+00:00): Call it a nature_reserve.  Call it a protected_area.  I'm down with that.  One, both or neither.  Please, fewer words.

Merry way.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 03:09:00+00:00): You know, this one in particular pisses me off because it's so obviously a bad call on your part, but I don't like it when other people map edits based on emotions. So I'm going to hold myself to the same standard and pass on this. I appreciate the suggested compromise though. Maybe someone else can re tag it eventually.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 10:00:35+00:00): Re-opening as a reminder so someone else can re-tag it eventually per the comments if they feel like it.
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 16:44:27+00:00): Re-tag it how?  It is correctly tagged now.  If you think otherwise, tag otherwise.  But please be able to say why as you do (in your changeset comment, for example).
closed by stevea (2019-09-30 23:02:24+00:00): Every reason to resolve this; resolving.
opened by Nika Zhorzholianni (2019-04-20 12:04:57+00:00): "this restaurant is closed about one year"
The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can be outdated), but cannot be found on the ground.
POI name: რეტრო - აჭარული ცომგაცლილი ხაჭაპური
POI types: amenity-fast_food
OSM data version: 2019-03-14T00:11:02Z
 #mapsme
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:06:02+00:00): There's only one Soquel Lion's park. Not four. It's like three mapped inside of each other. Also, the wooded area doesn't go over the buildings.
commented by  (2019-04-25 19:48:36+00:00): The park is fixed.  The wood is Nathan's mess; contact user:nmixter (he's a hiking friend, but he's a lower-quality paint-bucket-spilling mapper who has been roundly criticized for his atrocious imports.  I've tried to help him with at least one major import (the Monterey Coutny Farmland Mapping Project; it's wiki-documented), but my mentoring apparently didn't "take" with him.  I don't know what dataset he used from SCCGIS for these "wooded riparian corridors" (and have property on one of them) but they are rudely wrong/sloppy/out-of-date, otherwise I'd fix them myself.  I have edited some "down to reality" using satellite imagery, this is tedious and often ends abruptly at a boundary (city limits, for example).  Please close/resolve and open a new one for the natural=wood mess.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-26 08:12:35+00:00): "The park is fixed"

Actually, it's not. The wooded area south west that's currently tagged "Soquel Lions Park" isn't part of the park. It's obvious from the Street Side images that's just dense wood's with and embankment and wall on the street side. Also, the park doesn't go along the north park of the elementary school like it's mapped. As the Street Side images clearly show, that area is just part of the church yard and then a wall of trees. Judging by the Street Side images and the photos, the park probably only takes up a small area from where the bridge is to where it ends south of there. I see nothing to indicate otherwise, and it's already mapped way further then it should be. This is another instance where you would have known all that if you had done research. 

Btw, Heart of Soquel Park is double mapped. Feel free to deal with that if you want to or I'll do it later when I have some time.
closed by stevea (2019-04-27 21:43:39+00:00): I believe you mean the SE wooded area, not SW.  That IS part of the park property managed by County Parks.  So, it is fixed, especially as these are official landuse data polygons.  What you see in imagery does not supercede where the actual boundaries of the park are.

I removed the "double mapped" Heart of Soquel Park, there is now only one and I believe is quite accurate, though the edge along Soquel Drive/back of the post office might not be perfect (off by a meter or two?)

The wooded riparian corridor that Nathan originally submitted/uploaded but didn't even check had any semblance with reality (woods going through houses and businesses) has been improved, though it's still a bit rough.

That's everything mentioned.  Resolving.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 00:51:38+00:00): Thanks. Much appreciated. "thumb's up emoji."
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 00:57:30+00:00): Resolved, then re-activated?  Huh?
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 00:59:08+00:00): Wait, there's still three Soquel Lions Park's here. That should be dealt with. I don't know how, but as I said the south part along Main Street clearly isn't part of the park. So it's not really dealt with. Again, the tag is about a leisure activity. Not who owns what property and it's clear there is an impenetrable heavily wooded embankment along the road that keeps from doing "recreational thing" there. it's not clear it's part of the park boundaries either. Because of said wood, and also because it's mapped down further past the park across the street. It's probably just an inaccurate mapping. It should just be mapped as a wood. 

Also, the park still goes along the church property to the north where the church property is. So this is far from dealt with. Again, you make superficial changes and call it good instead of fixing the actual problem.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 01:00:43+00:00): Change the SE lobe of Lion's to leisure=nature_preserve, if you like.  I'm down with that.

Wow, he can't type without insulting.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 01:04:49+00:00): If you want to add a boundary=protected_area tag, a protect_class value might be 7, 5 or 4.

Be bold.  Type less.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 01:07:12+00:00): There, we just quick-paced (well, two weeks to two months ago, when we first crossed paths) maybe nine or ten years of OSM.  Leisure=park?  No, consider nature_reserve.  Then, boundary=protected_area arrives.  OK?

Tag well.  Map well.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 01:55:08+00:00): Btw, we crossed paths a few years ago when I first signed up to. It went as well as this did, but I thought id give you another chance though, instead of just writing you off a few years later based on only a few interactions.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 09:58:21+00:00): park still goes through church yard. I had fixed it, but it was reverted. So re-opening until it's actually dealt with. Plus there still shouldn't be two named Soquel Lions Parks. One element, one whatever it is rule.
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 16:35:37+00:00): What church yard?

This is "dealt with," it is fixed.  There is no naming error:  there are two elements ("units") of the park, one tagged park, the other tagged a nature_reserve, but they both share the same name.  There is nothing wrong here.
closed by stevea (2019-09-30 23:02:50+00:00): Fixed; resolving.
opened by  (2019-04-20 12:13:23+00:00): onosm.org submitted note from a business:
name: موبایل ارکید
phone: +9891435455484
website: 
twitter: undefined
hours: 
category: ,Mobile Phone Repair
address:
opened by ToniE (2019-04-20 12:13:31+00:00): diese Haltestelle ist gegenüber von Hausnummer 86
commented by  (2019-04-22 18:40:43+00:00): Selbst korrigiert
closed by ToniE (2019-04-22 18:41:02+00:00): Na ja, angemeldet geht's besser.
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:14:32+00:00): This park doesn't exist. The wood also doesn't go over the warehouses.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 14:57:52+00:00): It is undeveloped land managed by County Parks in a sort of "photo park" state.  How would YOU map this?
closed by stevea (2019-04-29 09:10:42+00:00): I've replied with the correct answer, got no response from complainant.  Resolving.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 00:49:55+00:00): Don't resolve notes from over a personal grudge. Its abusing the note system.
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 00:58:32+00:00): It isn't personal:  there is nothing to fix here, so I resolved it.

("Proto" not "photo").

Be constructive, not critical (unless your criticism IS constructive).  "Wrong.  I'll get to this later" is disingenuous.  Especially as a Note, a system you abuse, not me.  Ever heard of a FIXME tag?  You do have to actually look at the tags and begin to propose a better set of them on this to even move forward towards a solution.

If you can assert (with integrity) that this isn't a park and doesn't deserve the leisure=park tag (I'm listening), tag it leisure=nature_reserve or boundary=protected_area.  You'd be done in five seconds.  Instead, you waste time with so many words.  Map!  Map well!
closed by stevea (2019-09-30 23:04:23+00:00): Months later, no better assertion, so closing as resolved.
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:18:07+00:00): What kind of landuse is this? Special use isn't a landuse in OSM.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 14:25:46+00:00): See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California , sections Landuse, Local Conventions and Work To Be Done in the County.
closed by stevea (2019-04-29 09:06:24+00:00): Yes, as Adamant persists in throwing notes against the map and seeng what sticks, then leaving them unresolved after having his question answered with a wiki he should have already read when editing in the area, these will be resolved.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 00:43:39+00:00): I thought we were going to be civil to each other and get along? It won't help the map improve if you don't put your snippy, judgemental, attitude in check. So chill out.
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 00:50:53+00:00): Which polygon?  (There are several around where your note is planted which derived from special_use but are now commercial, and at least four which remain special_use, but with FIXME tags, another way to say "what kind of landuse is this?" tagged by me already.

Choices seem to be (you are like spoon-feeding a baby, sometimes, Adam; I've asked you to be specific with id#s several times):  way # 281897468, 281897300, 685326977 or 685326990?  Which?
closed by stevea (2019-09-30 23:05:36+00:00): Went nowhere, resolving.
opened by  (2019-04-20 12:19:52+00:00): onosm.org submitted note from a business:
name: موبایل ارکید
phone: +9891435455484
website: 
twitter: undefined
hours: 
category: ,Mobile Phone Repair
address:
closed by Sosha1996 (2023-08-03 09:23:44+00:00): this note closed by script for due inactivity.
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:20:04+00:00): This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy area. Probably part of the neighborhood above it or something.
commented by  (2019-04-25 20:47:49+00:00): It is a park according to County Parks (and me, as I park my car here sometimes) as it meets the leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and contains amenities (parking).  I have heard that this will be used in the future to expand parking facilities and perhaps provide restrooms in the future, that is only being discussed at present.

It may be a "unit" of the mildly schizophrenically-defined Aptos Village Park, which has been better "coalescing its units together," though some of them remain discontiguous (this is unclear).

However, this is part of a larger park area (whether part of Forest of Nisene Marks State Park or Aptos Village Park, nobody seems to be able to give me a straight answer), but it IS a park.

Check local records (SCCGIS v5 or CPAD v2), too.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-25 23:40:46+00:00): "It is a park according to County Parks (and me, as I park my car here sometimes) as it meets the leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and contains amenities (parking)"

Sounds like a public parking lot with some grass to me. Especially since it's fenced off (insinuating they don't want people to use it, or they just expect people to jump the fence? I guess there could be gate, but the gate could also be locked for public access if there is one..So...). 

"I have heard that this will be used in the future to expand parking facilities and perhaps provide restrooms in the future, that is only being discussed at present."

Sounds like it could be mapped as a park when that happens if it does then. Although plenty of public parking places have restrooms, those things don't make them parks. In the mean time I think it would be better mapped as a meadow (government owned meadows don't get auto park tags either btw).  Since that's what it is, but I'll also check the SCCGIS thing when I have some time. 

It could be part of a larger park area as you say also, but its really not clear that's the case since its surrounded by other landuse and I'm pretty sure the Nisene Marks State Park boundary is mapped to far down. For me it looks like it's parking for the cycling center and pump track. Maybe the public can park there, as they probably don't care, and walk to the parks near by, but that doesn't make it parking "for the parks." It's probably the cycling centers property also.
closed by stevea (2019-04-27 14:22:25+00:00): "When I have some time" is a dog that don't hunt, here.  If you open a note, you're committing to make the time to examine somebody's answer, especially when s/he is local and parks, bikes and hikes here.

I got lost after too many "sounds like" and "could be" and "its (it's) not really clear" (to Adamant1) and "probably" and "I'm pretty sure" (no, you are not sure, however, I park and hike and bike and map here).

Weasel words compared to a map-savvy, experienced local.  Anybody can decide this, easily.

If and when you "find the time" to learn whatever it is you need to learn to be sure about this (I already am), you are welcome to open a note, though fix it at that future date.  Meantime, I'm closing this as resolved, as it is.  Nothing to see here but a bunch of speculation somebody isn't too sure about.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-27 19:46:44+00:00): ""When I have some time" is a dog that don't hunt, here. If you open a note, you're committing to make the time to examine somebody's answer" 

There's no mandate in OSM that notes get resolved within a certain amount of time. I'm free to re-examine it when I can get around to it. There's thousands of notes around from years ago. 

"I got lost after too many "sounds like" and "could be" and "its (it's) not really clear""

Kind of like how somewhere "could be a park because I can walk down a path there"? Again, follow your own standards. Otherwise, piss off. I'm sick of your one sided hypocrisy on everything. 

"Weasel words compared to a map-savvy, experienced local."

A map savvy experienced local that draws fake paths through peoples yard to get his way instead of providing evidence to support his argument. Real savvy. 

Btw, I reported you to the DWG for the editing warring you did when you reverted all the stuff I edited. Your false accusation of being a vandal for "affected" landuse's whatever that means is clearly harassment. Along with you telling me to shout the F and map repeatedly before that and the other bullying things you said. Hopefully will actually do something this time. You don't have an embargo on editing things in the Santa Cruz area and people shouldn't have to go through a barrage of hateful, bullying crap to do it. Nor should they have to waste their time doing edits that you will just revert for utter none sense reason. 

I ask you yesterday and multiple times before then to leave me and my edits alone. That includes my notes. Id appreciate it if you respected my wishes. Your not obligated to deal with me in any what so ever. Just because you edit in the Santa Cruz area doesn't mean you have to be involved in everything having to do with it. So id appreciate it if you pissed of left me alone. If this is really a park, and if the places where I placed other notes asking about things are actually those things, there's plenty of other people
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-27 19:47:46+00:00): that can come along and tell me. Otherwise, if you continue to harass me I'll report you to the DWG again. I'm not going to ask for you to leave me alone again.
closed by stevea (2019-04-29 09:09:47+00:00): Verbally abusive vandal wants to bullyrag and annoy, then offers word salad babble explanation.  Resolving as baloney.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 00:48:17+00:00): Tisk tisk, don't say your want to be civil and start over one day. Then throw out insults and personal judgements the next. Otherwise we will have to uncessarily go a few more rounds until your actually done. Which won't serve anyone. If your not willing to discuss things, just don't comment and leave the note open for someone who is.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 00:49:04+00:00): I'm perfectly willing to report you for verbal and note abuse again in the meantime if need be.