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.

I am using the tax assessor in some of my other changes to confirm that the street name is correct and that the addresses near a given street are wrong. The tax assessor is financially motivated in accurate addresses to send tax bills, and it's a public record. It's not perfect, but it's an additional data point.

It also helps with putting an address within a bounding box. It's also a good source of alternate street names that may not be consistently used on the street signs.

I use it as an additional data point to confirm that all of the data is consistent. In this specific case, it's not as important as the street sign. There have been some interesting typos and confirmation of oddities found by using multiple data sources.

Well the sign on the street still says "Del" and the San Jose GIS website has both. Also all of the nearby addresses use "Del". The San Jose GIS data has it lower cased *and* title cased. At minimum, I'm going with what the street sign says, which I'm assuming the department of transportation installed at the corner.

Actually, the Cupertino GIS says that the Santa Clara Tax assessor information about the property with the Westminester address is actually Westminster like the rest of the addresses. So this is confirmed to be correct by the Cupertino GIS information.

https://gis.cupertino.org/propertyinfo/?level=16&center=-13588756.721892135,4484468.512280379,102100

Actually, this is the Vista del Lago Condominiums. I find the current addr:housenumber values to be very suspect. The Santa Clara County Tax Assessor disagrees with the current addr:housenumber values assigned to these buildings. The area is divided into 4 main addresses at 121,151 Buckingham Drive and 120,150 Saratoga Avenue. Each of those main addresses have multiple addr:unit values.

None of the buildings seem to be apartments. They seem to be townhouses in the Vista del Lago Condominium complex. From a taxing and ownership perspective, that's an important distinction.

I recommend checking out this website for the scope of the area in question. https://www.remax.com/homes-for-sale/ca/santa-clara/vista-del-lago-condominiums/neighborhood/1012382

Never mind, it looks like you already reverted it.

Actually it does both common values (black) and supported values (blue). Since there is disagreement, I'll revert this change.

Yes I’m aware of that.

It's likely that the documentation is out of sync with the editor. The OpenStreetMap iD editor provides state as a valid value.

This issue is typically highlighted as "Similar values national and regional in flag:type=national;regional". This isn't an issue when it's using the less ambiguous "flag:type=national;state".

I left the multilingual names for the New Concept Academy for the main office, but I refined the academy information in this changeset: changeset/144705679

The website says that it's located in suite 215. I visited the site, and it contains 3 rooms according to the doors, and 215 seems to be the main office. The other rooms were changed to classrooms with a relationship to the New Concept Academy campus (the collection of rooms).

Fair point.

I had a discussion elsewhere in the county about whether a bridge crossing a highway and a railroad should be on layer 1 or 2. I moved the bridge from layer 2 to layer 1. There wasn't a layer 1 before, and it was the only bridge in the area that did this. The other person's concern was that the road and railroad could be on different layers because they *could* on different grades even though they are parallel. I advocated that they are on the same grade below the bridge and thus there is only 1 layer below the bridge.

So some other people have thought of it as a physical descriptor. Though it shouldn't be confused with level in a building, which is a physical descriptor.

The change to New Concept Academy was trying to resolve several issues. Though after reviewing the business license for New Concept Academy at <https://www.cupertino.org/aca>, it's possible that this business no longer exists. The license expired last year. I recommend confirming that New Concept Academy still exists. The company is a registered business in Sunnyvale, and it goes by only "New Concept Academy" instead of any other localized name.

This looks like a good change! Thanks.

When you put it that way, it makes sense. Thanks for the change.