piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
opened by  (2019-04-20 12:00:14+00:00): The property is infront of the sea infront of Rossini restaurant.
It is a sea view property. 
One way Street going up .
So ask for Alexandra Hotel and stop there.
The property is a few metres away towards the sea.on Church Street.
commented by  (2019-04-20 12:01:49+00:00): Prestige crt  is situated  on the corner of 
WILGA STREET AND CHURCH STREET  
ON TOP OF THE INDIA RESTAURANT   SAFFRON
commented by  (2019-04-20 12:05:36+00:00): Infront of 
La Maltija restaurant
commented by  (2019-04-20 12:06:58+00:00): Il Veleiron restaurant  closed I
It is now  called Saffron
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:01:58+00:00): This isn't a park. It's a wooded area with the only place to access it fenced off as private property.
commented by  (2019-04-25 18:52:06+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 (informally) via Capitola Road on the NW side of the bridge.  Please Resolve this note.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-25 21:06:11+00:00): "it is an "urban green space open to public recreation" 

Where is it open to the public if the only place to access it is fenced off and says private property? The place you say there is access on the north west of Capitola Road is a wall of trees and fences for the houses according to the Street View images. There's a tiny path between them, but that's par for the course of any residential area bordered by a wood. It doesn't make them all a park. This is also a gulch. As evidence by creek name. So I doubt there's much room between the residential area and gulch for anything recreational. At least at this point, considering how dense everything is. 

"This IS a "protected area" according to CPAD 2018a data (greeninfo.org), SCCGIS v5" 

Seems like to your own accord that it should be tagged as a protected area then. Especially since the amenities that would make it a park haven't been built yet and like I say most of it's currently fenced off to the public. Then later on when the city actually builds the park there, if they ever do, it can be mapped as one. In the meantime, we can leave a note saying a park will built be there that can be mapped when it's eventually done. Remember, we map things based on what's actually there at the time, not in anticipation of something maybe or maybe not being built there eventually and it's clearly not a park in it's current form. By OSM's definition of one or even your own.
commented by stevea (2019-04-25 23:29:38+00:00): I just drove by there an hour ago, regardless of what you see in a (proprietary, non-ODbLcompliant?) data source.

I am free to hike down the gulch at the bridge edge access and recreate.  This is public land.  Ergo, park.  Resolve this.
commented by stevea (2019-04-25 23:36:45+00:00): Parks don't require amenities, though they greatly benefit by having them.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-26 08:30:59+00:00): "I just drove by there an hour ago, regardless of what you see in a (proprietary, non-ODbLcompliant?) data source."

I meant Street Side images obviously. It's easy to call it Street View since I use it way more for private use and they both start with "street." 

"I am free to hike down the gulch at the bridge edge access and recreate."

You should do it then and map it  with Mappilary. It would be an easy to prove it. Although like I said, even if there is a small path between the houses and the gully for you to walk down it doesn't automatically make it a park. Plenty of places do that are/aren't owned by cities and they aren't parks. Notice to you said that you said you "could." Until you actually do, you don't know how far the path goes or its purpose. Your just assuming you do to prove a point that has no other supporting evidence. If you do actually hike down it and it is a park fine, but there should be a standard of "I think that's what it is, maybe, but I only drive by there and haven't actually been there, but I'll map it that way anyway." 

"This is public land. Ergo, park. Resolve this."

Public land does not equal park. Except in cases where it does. But there's plenty of "public land" out there that's not parks. Let alone tagged as them in OSM. There's no "this tag is for everything that's public land" description on the park wiki page.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-26 08:35:02+00:00): "Parks don't require amenities, though they greatly benefit by having them." 

I didn't say they require them. I said they are good indicators of how to tell if somewhere is a park from the images. I just mentioned them in relation to the fact that you said "it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and other amenities." Which if that's the case, it should be mapped as a construction zone then until they are done building it. 

Btw, did you happen to see any restrooms being built when you drove by there? If you didn't the statement above it being under development isn't true. If you did, you can show it in the Mapillary images you take and we can map it as a construction zone.
commented by stevea (2019-04-26 19:31:08+00:00): "if there is a small path between the houses and the gully for you to walk down it doesn't automatically make it a park."

Mmm, maybe, but I lean toward "no."  Here is my disagreement:  if I can or do enter the area and recreate (hike, contemplate, enjoy the pretty trees and sound of the creek...), I have just treated the area "like" a park.  "As if" it IS a park.  Therefore, I'm OK tagging something like that "park," though it may not contain amenities (and nowhere in leisure=park's wiki do we say "amenities are required in a park").

You might feel that this is the same as your annoyance with "people's lawns being defined as parks," (which I am annoyed with, too, as it's wrong).  However, "people's lawns" are private property, and this is public land, free for anybody to enter and recreate.  It is administered by the county parks department.  Is that a park?  I call it a weak version of one (yet one nonetheless) and you say it isn't.  Please bolster your argument as to why it isn't; I'm listening.

I didn't say it is under development (like with backhoes and construction crews), I meant in the sense of "as public land, in the jurisdiction in the county parks department as a protected area which may someday be a park with improvements").  Some in OSM are beginning to toss around the idea of a tag like "proto_park" for places like this, but I haven't seen (nor done) any tagging like this (yet, I'm still listening).  I did say it is "unimproved," these are two different things.
commented by  (2019-04-27 00:56:31+00:00): " if I can or do enter the area and recreate (hike, contemplate, enjoy the pretty trees and sound of the creek...), I have just treated the area "like" a park. "As if" it IS a park."

Ah ha. See, that's the issue. Your using a subjective interpretation of the tag. When the definition is clearly objective. Notice the wiki says "A park is an area of open space for recreational use." In other words, a park is an "open space" used "for recreation." The "open space" coming first in the sentence is the important thing there. Whereas, "recreation" is second. Otherwise, recreation would become the defining thing of a park and I'm pretty sure the people who created the tag knew that it would be to broad and subjective a description without a descriptive caveat added to it. So while you might be able to shimmy between the fence and dense under brush, to go find a bush to "recreational" sit under, it's not an open space. I know a few people who enjoy lounging around in trash bins behind fast food restaurants. They don't get tagged as parks because they are subjectively "recreational" places. Anywhere could be. There has to objective clauses to tagging. Otherwise, it could apply to anything and there's be a bunch of arguing. 

Also, notice in the wiki it says "this tag is intended for urban parks with managed greenery." In no way is the dense forest area here "managed greenery." Whatever you might be think about your ability to take a nap there. There your still also making an assumption about the ability to hike etc. Since you haven't actually been down the path. It could just as easily end at the peoples fence line and you might get the cops called on you for trespassing. You really don't know. Everything your saying is based on unfounded assumptions. Whereas, I'm going by what's clear in the photos and what the wiki says. 

If you don't like the wiki definition of an open space with managed greenery, consult the community,  "build consensus," "do more listening,"
commented by  (2019-04-27 01:10:23+00:00): have the wiki changed, blah blah blah. That's what you said everyone else should do. Follow your own standards. 

"nowhere in leisure=park's wiki do we say "amenities are required in a park")."

I never said it did. I said it's a good indicator to by with the satellite photos etc to tell if somewhere is a park or not. Your the one that brought up in a few other places that they are parks because eventually there will be bathrooms there, or like the parking lot with a restroom. So when it suits you are good indicators, when it doesn't. Just be consistent about it. Either they are or they aren't. Your the one that said they were. 

"You might feel that this is the same as your annoyance with "people's lawns being defined as parks," (which I am annoyed with, too, as it's wrong). 

They are only comparable as far as both involve mapping based on the mappers subjective experience. As I said above, your the one projecting "parkness" on to it. Like people do with their lawns. You said so yourself that its classified as a protected area. Which there's already another tag for. So it's your interpretation of the place. It's also your interpretation that it fits the tag despite not being open or not having managed greenery. I'm 100% fine with it being tagged as park later on when it is tough. I'm not disputing that your annoyed by lawn park mapping either. I just think your willing to make exceptions when it suites you. 

"However, "people's lawns" are private property,""

Some parks are private also. I'm not sure what that has to do with it. 

" didn't say it is under development (like with backhoes and construction crews), I meant in the sense of "as public land, in the jurisdiction in the county parks department as a protected area which may someday be a park with improvements")."

I'll just say this, in Nevada 87.8% of land is "public land." in California it's 52.1%. In AZ it's 56.8%. Oregon 60.4%. Washington's a little smaller with 41.9% public land.
commented by  (2019-04-27 01:16:50+00:00): So if you went with the definition of parks=public land, you'd be looking at like 75% of the western united states being tagged as leisure=park. It's really not workable in any way what so ever. The tag becomes essentially useless at that point. If you just confine it to California, it's still over half. That's totally not realistic. Maybe you could ignore that and the actual park definition in the wiki by tagging everything public owned in Santa Cruz as parks, but then it's still probably like 30 or 40 percent there if not more. Which doesn't even work on a local level. Not to mention that you'd have a park silo. Where everything there is tagged different then everywhere else and people from other places would be like "well Santa Cruz has everything tagged as parks" why can't my town be mapped that way? Then ultimately your looking at like 40% of America getting tagged as parks. At the expense of a lot of other better tags none the less. That's just in public land to. But no way in hell would it work for over 50% of California to be tagged as leisure=park just because it's public land. Totally totally un doable in Nevada. They'd have nothing else left.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 01:20:07+00:00): No, it's not "subjective interpretation," it is me establishing nexus to declare "this is a park," as I, myself, just treated it like one.

It is an open space.  USLegal (.com, go find your own that agrees with your confused understanding) "Open space generally refers to undeveloped land...".  Nobody "gets the cops called on them" for being on open space, unless that open space is specifically closed to public access (some are).

Santa Cruz (city of) owns two HUGE open spaces:  one near Loch Lomond (some old railway ROW), relation/7101595, another, also closed to the public:  relation/7101798 next to Bonny Doon Ecological Reserve (California Department of Fish and Game, which contains closed and open areas).  These are not tagged parks, correctly I believe all agree.  However, they are not managed by the Parks & Recreation Department one is an important watershed area near Loch Lomond, the city's primary drinking water reservoir.  Yet, I recently much better tagged the leisure=park at Loch Lomond (with the boat dock...) relation/9477845, and "the watershed," relation/7101509 because even they both have the same name and are administered by the same agency for largely similar purposes (and both are open to recreation), they are slightly different areas and so deserve slightly different tagging (one park, one not).  This is evidence of my careful tagging of parks and park-like-but-not-quite-parks around here.

You are mistaken about me never having been here.  It's just a few blocks from a friend of mine for over forty years.  You assume far too much.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 01:23:35+00:00): Anybody else reading this:  there is no winning with this guy except to simply not play his game.
commented by  (2019-04-27 01:47:11+00:00): Btw, Arkansas is like 95.8% public land. You might as all map the whole state as a park and call it good by your definition. I can pretty easily look at NV and see that 88% of it isn't tagged as leisure=park. There's actually only one small area that is. The rest is tagged in the usual ways, as protected areas or national parks. Same goes for AK. It's pretty clearly not 95.8% tagged as parks. Which directly flies in the face of your whole "this is how people in America define and tag these things" on the wiki. It doesn't even hold true for California, except through imports that were never fixed, intentional miss-tagging, and the anomalies down here in Santa Cruz.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 01:53:01+00:00): Well, why haven't you tagged all of Arkansas, all of Nevada and all of Alaska properly yet?  See, I'm being facetious, when I shouldn't be.

What anomalies in Santa Cruz?  Why haven't you fixed anomalies in Santa Cruz yet?  I have, I do.

Map more.  Babble less.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-27 02:20:07+00:00): "No, it's not "subjective interpretation," it is me establishing nexus to declare "this is a park," as I, myself, just treated it like one."

You just said it was based on "you treating it like one." How is that not subjective? Your assertion that becaue you can recreationally walk down a path you've never been on that it makes it a park is completely subjective also. 

You haven't shown any nexus. Except a single unreliable source that isn't backed up by anything in OSM or it's definition of a park...Soo...You said so yourself you haven't even been there or walked down the path. Just go do it and map it with mappilary. It's not that hard. 

"It is an open space. USLegal (.com, go find your own that agrees with your confused understanding)"

I'm pretty sure that OSM tagging isn't based on the single legal definition of something in one country. Just like someone can't violate copyright laws in OSM because they live somewhere that doesn't have any. 

Either way, just like I said above if you go with open space as being "Open space is any open piece of land that is undeveloped (has no buildings or other built structures) and is accessible to the public" it's still so broad a definition as to make the tag useless. So I'm sure that's not what the wiki means by open space. Its obvious it's more in the meaning of a "space that's open." There's still the whole "managed greenery" thing also. Which you conveniently ignored. I think your the one confused into thinking an individual countries laws dictates how things are tagged in OSM. it's 100% clear they don't. Otherwise, show me a source to support it with. 

"Nobody "gets the cops called on them" for being on open space, unless that open space is specifically closed to public access (some are)." 

Really? No body? It happens to black people all the time. There was just a case last summer of a black person that got the cops called on them for barbecuing in a park.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 02:24:09+00:00): Dear God in Heaven above, hear my prayer that this sad soul find productive use of his time, not waste mine.  Amen.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-27 02:28:27+00:00): Where I live I've been followed around by the cops several times just for walking around random public roads while I map things in OSM and your talking about a path that's extremely close to someone's fence and the side of their house. So that's clearly just wrong. 

"You are mistaken about me never having been here. It's just a few blocks from a friend of mine for over forty years. You assume far too much." your the one that said you drove by there. Going to some persons house 2 blocks away doesn't give you important details about the specific place we are discussing. If your so close to it all the time though, it shouldn't be to hard to just map it with mappilary and map it on here as a park after you do if it is one. 

"Well, why haven't you tagged all of Arkansas, all of Nevada and all of Alaska properly yet? See, I'm being facetious, when I shouldn't be."

Well yeah, because being facetious is a lot easier then just saying your wrong, that most of America doesn't do what you say you do or define things how you claim, and that it would totally un-workable in OSM if they did. So of course you would be. 

"What anomalies in Santa Cruz?"'

I already stated what anomalies. 

"Map more. Babble less."

OK. I guess I'll just delete this park then. "shrug."

"Anybody else reading this: there is no winning with this guy except to simply not play his game."

Tisk tisk. What happened to being civil and not making things personal?
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-27 03:01:10+00:00): Btw, do you know what the deal with the landuse=public_facility on the highway is? Can it be deleted?
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 23:18:01+00:00): "The deal" is that it is a (somewhat obviously incomplete) definition by SCCGIS of what Caltrans calls the Highway 1 right-of-way.

I wouldn't delete it, as it isn't erroneous, though as I say, it seems somewhat incomplete.  No other landuse attribute fits here, though I believe there is some talk on one of the tagging threads about "highway right-of-way" having a specific landuse tag, but it hasn't yet emerged.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 00:21:04+00:00): Well, I guess it doesn't really matter now anyway. Since you mass war edited me on it. Btw, I'm pretty sure that counted as an automated edit. As you replied to all the changeset's with the same comment so I'm pretty sure you didn't individually review all of them before hand. Plus, i'm 100% sure you  didn't hand remap the stuff either. Automated edits are suppose to be announced on the mailing list ahead of time and looked at by other people.Which  I'm pretty sure you know already, but you'll clearly do whatever it takes to get your way and be right.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 00:22:33+00:00): Btw, I thought like you said like six times you weren't going to talk to me anymore and that I told you leave me alone multiple times? You obviously don't have any respect for people's personal boundaries or the ability to follow through on what you say. Otherwise, why not just stop talking to me like you said you were going to?
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 00:48:57+00:00): Each changeset has a unique comment as each changeset was rather carefully examined.

We should collaborate more "in the map" (with correct tagging).  You, you talk a lot.  Me, I talk a lot.  We are a poor match.  Yet we collaborate.  I'd like to talk/type less and map well.  It was not an automated edit, it was a carefully considered "weather a storm."

There has been plenty of what you might call hand mapping.  Manual, carefully considered.  Better, in the opinion of more than one.  Maybe you are outnumbered.

The map is fine.  Type/talk less, map more, map well.

The map is much stronger now as a result.  Just look!
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-28 01:24:16+00:00): "We should collaborate more "in the map" (with correct tagging). You, you talk a lot. Me, I talk a lot. We are a poor match."

I agree with that. The talking doesn't really get us anywhere either and things just keep ending in stand offs. Which I wanted the notes to stay open and get a third opinion btw. While it wouldn't be fair if we just went with your's on things as a default it, it wouldn't be fair to go the other way either. So I think a third opinion is necessary on a lot of this stuff.  It's to bad there's so little mappers in California. 

" It was not an automated edit, it was a carefully considered "weather a storm."

I'd hardly call me doing the edits, you going off in the discussion post, sending me the messages, and then reverting me   within like a five minute span "well considered." There was zero time for you to actually think it through and review the edits. Whatever you say. Maybe you well considered it before that, because you had it planned ahead of time. That sound's pretty likely to me. You also gave me zero chance to respond to your changeset comments and you didn't even say which edits were an issue or give me a chance to correct them before reverting me. Which directly went against what Mateusz Konieczny asked you to do and is obligatory if your going to accuse someone of something. You can't just accuse someone of vandalism and then revert them before they have a chance to explain their actions. I wouldn't do that to you, know matter how much we disagree on things. If you noticed, I was respectful enough about your edits to not delete the paths you created. Even though I'm 100% sure they are/were fake because I think you should have to chance to correct your own mistakes and explain yourself. You didn't show me that same respect back. Which is especially hurtful considering you said to edit things in the first place, like you were willing to work with me and I was looking forward to improving the map there. I would have fixed the mistakes.
commented by stevea (2019-04-28 01:32:32+00:00): So fix mistakes.  Shhh.  I was deep in thought between 3 AM and 7 AM putting out a small brush fire, the decisions made were not done hastily.  They were done well and with expediency.

I personally encourage you to map well.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 09:59:32+00:00): Reactivated since it was never fixed and every edit I've done here, including adding houses has been reverted. So someone needs to deal with it, but it should be dealt with.
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 16:39:51+00:00): Fix what?  Things are correctly tagged here.  What are you asserting is wrong?  This is resolvable.
closed by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 21:27:13+00:00): Ummm that it's not a park and can be tagged as a protected area instead like you suggested. That's what the note was created for and what the whole conversation was about. I'll just re-tag it myself right now and resolve this.
opened by  (2019-04-20 12:03:40+00:00): Prestige crt is situated on the corner of
Wilga st. And church street.
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:03:42+00:00): Another none existent park edited by Stevea