How were you able to verify that this dike is not magmatic?

The oilfield at the center of this feature suggests that it would be a geological dome, since the majority of the worlds oil deposits are found in geological domes. What source did you use to determine that this is a volcanic caldera rim?

Based on the mature vegetation established at this location, the feature is clearly the landform established by a previous landslide. Can you explain why the geological tag is not appropriate in this case?

I am restoring the geological=endorheic_lake tag as the use of the lake=* tag is not documented and the values in use are not consistent.

I see that the geological=magmatic_dyke for way/288479475 was recently reduced to geological=dike. If the feature is formed by magma, would it be appropriate to restore the more specific tag?

Nice work on the columnar jointing and glacial erratic Wiki pages, by the way!

Hi! I see you removed the natural=dry_wash tag and added a natural=sand tag. I put the natural=dry_wash tag here specifically as an experimental case to work out new tagging for this type of feature. Do you mind if I put it back?

Ah yes. It was that one extra node on the other continent. Sorry.

Nicely done! It's good to have the connectivity back. I plan to be out there when it gets a little cooler and will have an opportunity to survey current conditions.

I see that some of the sections of Steel Pass Road have been deleted. I know things got washed out pretty good last year (saw it myself) but recent reports are that the route has been reestablished. Did you have plans to restore those sections?

I saw your nodes and figured I'd see if I could find any info to help. GNIS has Burrows Park as a flat (i.e. natural feature) at the location of node/6635825602. Historical USGS Topo also has the same name in the same location.

https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/gaz-record/187418

Was there a ghost town by the same name nearby?

It doesn't really affect what I was doing. But I was curious so I did a little more searching, and while this is the only building mapped as a relation with admin_level=4, there are other buildings with the admin_level tag mapped as ways. So, I guess this is an appropriate tag for the building. Nice job with all the fancy levels, by the way!

That might be true for mapping in other parts of the world, but in the entire US, this is the only building with an admin_level=4 tag.

I was doing a query on admin_level=4 features in the US to collect some information about state boundaries and these relations ended up in the data set. At the very least, I might drop that tag from the relations.

Hi! I think the convention in the US is to reserve the admin_level=4 tag for the official state boundary relation. Mind if I remove it from this building so that it doesn't pop up in query results?

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?