Changeset: 46995664
Twin Lakes
Closed by stevea
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (11639 en) |
---|---|
source | California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) – www.calands.org (December 2016) |
Discussion
-
Comment from Adamant1
The area's of node 4744015554 and also the small park that's actually someone's house above it aren't parks. Again, you miss mapping houses and tiny grassy areas as parks.
-
Comment from stevea
When you say "above it," do you mean "northerly?"
And nope, these are legally and jurisdictionally part of Twin Lakes State Beach. I am not mismapping, I am mapping "what is." If you can specify what is wrong here, say what that is, please. I don't see how these are part of "someone's house," at least as I use DigitalGlobe Premium Imagery. On the more northerly "triangle park," I can see (and have mapped) a trapezoidal building, however, perhaps the State Parks Depatment uses this for storage, I don't know. But it is still "park."
-
Comment from Adamant1
"these are legally and jurisdictionally part of Twin Lakes State Beach"
Hhhmmm, do you have a reference for that? Even if they were, your still mixing up legal status (I.E. landuse) with a leisure activity (I.E. what makes something a park in OSM. Plus, as we have already established else everything owned or maintained by the parks department doesn't automatically get tagged as a park. Not to mention, it's clear from the photo's that there is a clear delineation line between the park, which it's debatle if it even is one. Its more like protected area. Which they themselves they maintain protected areas. So some things out there run by them are), and the residential area. Which clearly goes past so the "building" is part of the residential area. As the place has a chain link fence along the border that make it's separate. If it was owned by the parks department, why would it have a fenced off back and side yard from what you claim is there own property? Seems odd it would.
"I can see (and have mapped) a trapezoidal building, however, perhaps the State Parks Depatment uses this for storage, I don't know."
Exactly, you don't know if its owned by the parks department, "but it might be. So I'll just say it is." Right. That sounds like some sound logic. Not.
If you look at the Street Side images there's planters outside the place with plants, there's also curtains on the window, and the aforementioned fence. It would be odd if it was just an out building for storage that it would have well cared for potted plants and curtains on the window. Not to mention the backyard also has a garden. Again, in a fenced off yard. Doesn't sound like a "storage building" to be. Even more telling though, is the fact that in most of the images people are parked just below there on the side of the road. Even though the parking lot for it is completely empty. Which seems odd if it was just part of the park. There's nothing saying people can't park there. Maybe they just aren't though, because they know it's a house? Sounds logical to me. Btw, there's also nothing on the building or anywhere else on the property saying it's a parks department building and usually there is if it is. I think I thoroughly disproved it though, from things you could have easily found out yourself if you had of done basic research.
Btw, the place is 120 9th Avenue. So there's also other ways to verify if it's a residence that you could have easily found if you wanted to like https://www.beenverified.com/property/ca/santa-cruz/9th-ave-residences/ Which clearly shows people live there. Even if it might be "owned" by the parks department (which it's 100% clear it's not), it's obviously a residence with people living there and not a "park."
Again, if your going to state things, at least do some basic research and use multiple sources to back yourself up with. Otherwise, your just wasting people's time, like you did here.
-
Comment from stevea
I didn't say the Parks Department owns the building, I said the Parks Department owns the land. Buildings on land are also owned by the owner of the land, however they may be used. (Storage, leased to others, whatever). This IS "sound logic." What I said I didn't know is what the Parks Department uses the building for. That's all.
Speculate all you like about curtains and planters, meanwhile, I'll shrug (and pay little heed to word salad by others). You haven't really proven or disproven anything. And all I have asserted in OSM is what State Parks says.
Prove to yourself this is state park land: download the .kml file at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=862 and see that it is part of what state parks owns. If you think (now that you know it is owned by state parks) that it is something else, tag it that way. But it IS part of Twin Lakes State Beach, however it is used, so, I tagged that way. I see little offered by you except "I think people live there" to say otherwise, and while that may be true, it both doesn't make sense and it doesn't change that State Parks themselves say "this is part of this state beach."
I don't recall "we" (you or I, or OSM generally) "have already established else everything owned or maintained by the parks department doesn't automatically get tagged as a park," but if you want to say that, a good first step would be examples and counter-examples to offer as evidence/proof. (Maybe you meant "elsewhere" instead of "else," I have only your misspellings by which to glean what you mean).
-
Comment from Adamant1
"Speculate all you like about curtains and planters, meanwhile, I'll shrug (and pay little heed to word salad by others). You haven't really proven or disproven anything."
I used the evidence in OpenStreetMap to show it's a residence. That's what the things they provide are there for. I also provided a link to another site showing people live there. I'm not sure how that's speculation, but whatever. Btw, you forgot the garden in the back. I'm not sure where the word salad was either.
"Prove to yourself this is state park land"
You weren't originally making the argument it was "state park land." You said its part of the park because it might be used for storage. Which it isn't. So now your moving the goal post to "well they own the land at least." Which really doesn't matter to what tag is used. As I've said, the leisure=park tag isn't about ownership or landuse anyway. It's about a leisure activity that takes place where the tag is being used. If people live there and its not a place for leisure, then it's a residence and therefore should be tagged as residential land, not as a park. The tag isn't about ownership and you can't prove ownership by one GIS source that's probably inaccurate anyone, but just because they rent it from the state park department, if they even do, doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with that.
"I think people live there" to say otherwise, and while that may be true""
1. I didn't say "I think" people live there. I provided evidence that they do and you provided none that they don't. It's not my "thoughts" It's what the tools in OSM and other sources show.
2."While that may be true" exactly, it might or might not, you don't really care about the evidence I provided they do from multiple sources. Your just going to go with the a single source that's probably unreliable and an interpretation of the tag that doesn't fit anyway either way.
So what's the point in even discussing it in the first place then? Your the one that said you were open to talking about things and that if I want to change things I should discuss things and show why they should be changed. It's a massive waste of my time if you just discard the research I did off hand as simply "my opinion" and stick to your black and white, single unreliable source of interpretation of things. I also wonder what you think the point in the images OSM provides us to find out these things are if in every instance where they show what you think is wrong you discard them as evidence for something. They all clearly show someone lives there and the park tag doesn't fit just because it's owned by the parks department even if someone doesn't. So I'm not sure why you have such problem with re-tagging it. It's just one little area in a residential area that know one even uses or parks at. So why does it matter so if it's mapped as residential? It clearly should be.
"I don't recall "we" (you or I, or OSM generally) "have already established else everything owned or maintained by the parks department doesn't automatically get tagged as a park,"
Well, I mean, in the same way that the corporate headquarters of the San Francisco Giants doesn't get tag as leisure=pitch because a sports team owns it or the property of my local fish and game office where I buy a fishing licenses, which is down town, doesn't get tagged as a national park because it's ran by parks department people etc etc etc. So, "we" as in the OpenStreetMap community that decided through the consensus that you spend so much time talking about decided those things by making the park tag a leisure tag and not a landuse tag. Like the wiki says "A park is an area of open space for recreational use" A fenced off house, building, storage, whatever you want to call it, isn't open or used for recreation. Especially since people live in it. I zero ambiguity there.
If you have such a problem with it, talk to people in the community, build consensus, "do more listening," change the wiki to make it fit what you think a park is, etc etc etc blah blah blah. That's what you told me to do, repeatedly. I guess those things don't matter now that it's on you to do them though huh? SMH
Ways (13)
- Santa Maria's Beach (481466126), v1
- 481466127, v1
- 481466128, v1
- Seabright Beach (481466129), v1
- 481466130, v1
- 481466131, v1
- Harbor Beach (481466132), v1
- Black's Beach/Lincoln Beach (481466133), v1
- Lower Seabright (220351506), v4
- Rockview Drive County Park (281225020), v2
- Simpkins Family Swim Center (458603974), v2
458603975, v3479835002, v2
Relations (6)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |