I find it more likely that the USPS website is wrong or stale. I find it less likely that all the other data sources are wrong. If I visit the building and confirm the address, would you consider that more authoritative than USPS?

Again, I’m comfortable with putting the Cupertino address as a separate address point on the grounds that it may be an old address.

The 7-11 website doesn't even use this Cupertino address in the 95129 zip code. Are you sure that the USPS is valid? What if we come to a compromise and make the USPS address separate from what everyone else says is this address? It's possible that the border moved, and the USPS data is stale.

Also the San Jose GIS data shows that this is a San Jose address. The Cupertino GIS says that it's not Cupertino and it's in San Jose. Though I suspect that Cupertino is getting it from the same Santa Clara County GIS data.

Hi, I combined a point with a building, and I now see that they had different addresses. I probably should not have combined them that way. The Santa Clara County Tax Assessor and the 7-11 website show this location to be at 90 Stern Avenue in San Jose. The Santa Clara LAFCO website also says that it's in San Jose and not Cupertino. The existing city border in Open Street Map shows that this is in San Jose. Can you provide further information on why you think that this address is in Cupertino? I suspect that the USPS website is wrong or incomplete. Perhaps the USPS address can be an alternate address point on top of the building, since everything else is showing this to be a property in San Jose.

The website link to the Panda Express on Stevens Creek in San Jose still works, and you can still place orders for that location. You may want to check the website for validity of each location in the future.

Whoops! Thanks for the fix.

Thank you!

The accidental disconnection is fixed with this changeset. changeset/153357297#map=17/37.30781/-121.98635&layers=N

I already fixed the accidentally disconnected path in a separate changeset.

Actually some of them were labeled as a crossing me when in fact they are not crossings. Some crossings and sidewalks had to be realigned with aerial imagery. This change is valid.

If you happen to upload photos to Mapillary, it would be ideal if the photos were of both ends of the road closure. I had to estimate the closed segment based on potentially existing buildings. Some of the buildings look burned in the aerial photography. I marked the segment to the next building as access=no, but it could be longer.

This area likely needs some extra attention.

You're welcome to switch the segment to smoothness (smoothness=*) to some other value. I'm not exactly sure what the value should be since I haven't seen a recent picture of the road. The access=no is the important part of the change.

Uploading a recent photo to Mapillary is a great idea, especially at both ends of the closed road. Then other mappers will get a better idea of what the road conditions are.

As far as using other data sources, you should be very careful. Google Maps is copyrighted material and should not be used in OpenStreetMap. See the following for more details. osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F

Actually Lodge Road should not have been disconnected. It's still connected and visible. Therefore it should be mapped. It's just a bad path with fire damage visible in recent aerial imagery. This part of the road might also have been closed in previous years. I have reconnected and updated this segment of Lodge Road (way/10552330) to access=no and made the smoothness=very_bad. The line that you made is not interpretable by other mapping apps, but those applications tend to respect gates and access information.

Well that’s awkward. The Safeway website is wrong. Though it is the correct zip code for next door. I’ll change it to 95128-4320. That also matches the property records too.

Fair point. I reverted the change.

Let me rephrase. The only area in this changeset that added leisure=nature_reserve was way/885956549

All of the rest was a splitting of a multipolygon, which was already tagged as leisure=nature_reserve. You can confirm it here: relation/4220197/history

Are you only asking for Mount Chual Preserve to be reverted? I split off Rancho de Guadalupe and Cathedral Oaks because they are separate from the unnamed areas.

Actually the websites for these closed areas are explicit on how to treat these areas. I tried to put the following in the description, but maybe I missed one of the areas.
--------
This is a closed area. Entering a closed area is punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor according to https://www.openspace.org/trail-use-regulations.
--------
It sounds like what you're really saying is that the the protect_class and boundary=protected_area are the important and sufficient values, and that leisure=nature_reserve shouldn't be used because they're marked as closed areas on the Open Space District website. From what I saw, that's insufficient to classify what the area is supposed to be used for, and that the access=no/private adequately classifies who can access such areas.

With that being said, I think there may have been some confusion. One of the areas that I touched is managed by the Open Space Authority of Santa Clara Valley and not the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. I'd like to make sure that we're talking about the same areas and aligning with what we're reading from the websites. Can you point at which areas of concern that you want modified?

Also that Wiki page also states that "landuse=natural_reserve" is strongly discouraged.

Can you clarify your concern? The iD editor shows that tag as a nature reserve, which it is, but these areas under fairly strict access conditions. So they're not open. They're closed areas.

It's my understanding that they are a part of the Midpeninsula regional open space authority and/or the Open Space Trust. They're kind of 2 sides of the same coin. Their maps show these areas as closed areas (not private areas).

To quote the OSM documentation on it (leisure=nature_reserve), it says, "Such areas are reserved and managed for conservation and to provide special opportunities for study or research. Nature reserves may be designated by government institutions in some countries, or by private landowners, such as charities and research institutions." These areas meet those conditions according to the documentation.

Am I misunderstanding your request?

Thanks for the refinement.