Should the protected areas in this changeset have admin_level=4?

Thanks for making the change! As for the other "Jamacha" over by Cottonwood, I'm pretty satisfied that it has the right name in the right place. There's some good documentation to support it, and I think I've seen signs while I was going by on Jamul Dr.

As for "Jamacho" it doesn't look like that name has been used for much more than the old Mexican land grant. There may still be some people around who use the name, but that old land grant has been sliced and diced enough that I wouldn't want to try to find a boundary or center for it. Anyway, that might be something for OHM rather than OSM.

Digging a bit more on "Jamacho," it seems that this was an alternate spelling. GNIS has historical records of "Jamacao," "Jamacha," and "Jamacho" all referring to the same Mexican land grant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Jamacha

I guess if you think that this node is referring to something different than the other Jamacha node, we should keep both of them. I don't have strong feelings about where the nodes should be located. But merging the tags into landuse=residential areas does make sense.

If you know some of the history of the area, I wonder what you might make of the name "Jamacho," which is in GNIS and present on old USGS Topo maps. Maybe it's a USGS typo (or alternate spelling) that we've kept around for 60 years?

I came across this because I was looking more closely at Jamacha, and strangely, the GNIS record for Jamacho (https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/243992), and I just happened to come across this node.

The location for the other Jamacha (n150965543) is at the exact coords specified in GNIS and matches the placement of the name in historical USGS Topo maps. Which is not to say that the location is "right," just that there's a source for those coords.

When I saw this node, I wondered if there was a residential area or something nearby with signage that said "Jamacha" but didn't find anything on street-level imagery.

It seems like this might be a misplaced duplicate of osm.org/node/150965543. I know it's a long time ago, but do you happen to recall the source for the location of this node for Jamacha?

Have you found the right tag for "Corona-Schnelltest" yet? I don't think it should be "gnis:feature_id" since that's only for features cataloged by USGS.

Thanks! I'll look it up!

Which book was that?

Hi! I think the word "Mine" at this location on the USGS Topo map was a descriptive reference to the historical workings to the south and not the name of the peak. If the peak had an official name, it would be registered in GNIS but there's nothing there for this peak. Mind if I drop the name?

After digging a little more, it seems that the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve is elsewhere (https://fsp.sdsu.edu/about-us/). There is a Sky Oaks Field Station which is mapped nearby, but I haven't seen any evidence of a "Sky Oaks Ecological Reserve." Unless there is some documentation to support this or signage on the ground, I suggest we remove this node.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131403484

Both the prior URL and the new URL refer to this location as the "Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve." Unless there's a more definitive source for the alternate name, I think we should revert this changeset.

Hi! I noticed you made some changes to the road through Davies Valley in the Jacumba Wilderness Area. I didn't understand some of the changes, but the situation out there is very unusual (in real life, regardless of what's on the map) so I wanted to check in with you to make sure we're on the same page.

I saw that you put in some turn restrictions. What prompted you to add those?

Google Maps is not a definitive source and not something we can use as a reference for mapping in OSM. The two definitive sources for this area are USFS, which manages the land that this section of road is on, and SanGIS, which records the names of all the roads in San Diego County. Neither of those sources suggest that there was a "Thunder Valley Road" here. USFS owns this land, and they've named this section of road "Thing Valley Road." See https://www.fs.usda.gov/ivm/index.html?minx=-12961613&miny=3873995&maxx=-12956721&maxy=3876484&exploremenu=no

I've looked at the street level imagery and there's no "Winery Lane" sign there. Even if there was, it would have to be official signage to apply the name to this road. An unofficial sign would be used for a loc_name tag at best. We'd expect the official signage to match the SanGIS record for this road, but SanGIS has this as an unnamed private road.

That may be so, but the street signs say "Hoberg Road," the SanGIS record says "Hoberg Road" and the address data for the parcels along this road are for "Hoberg Road." So, this is "Hoberg Road." You can't just arbitrarily give a road a new name.

Sometimes old data was imported into OSM with names that aren't correct. This looks like one of those cases. Removing "El Monte Road" from this track was correct. Adding a new name that is not signed on the ground and is not in official records is not correct. Unless there's an actual sign out there, this road should remain unnamed.

There is no signage on the ground to support this name change nor is the name recorded in SanGIS. I have restored the previous name.

I have reverted these improper name changes.