Because there has been no response about the addresses, I restored them: changeset/116359540

Thanks for the detailed response.

Now that I've seen pictures of the signs, I agree that this situation is more complicated than I thought.

From what I've seen, it looks like the Cross Border Xpress is similar in operation to a small airport terminal, and there are no physical barriers or checkpoints blocking access to this road. We don't normally put access restrictions on this kind of airport road, but this is a little different because it's on private property. I don't know of any comparable privately owned airport terminals.

If they allow non-passengers to drive up and pick up passengers without advance permission, I would say that in practice the roads are open to the public, although there may be restrictions on how people can use the roads. The fact that the roads are on private property would be a detail with no impact on the user experience.

Here's something more concrete: the GraphHopper routing engine resorts to a bad route to avoid the private road: osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car&route=32.58166%2C-117.01214%3B32.54832%2C-116.97416#map=16/32.5504/-116.9795

Maybe access=destination would better reflect how the roads are actually used.

Hello,

I saw that you added access=private to some sections of road. These roads may be on private property, but as long as the general public is allowed to use them access=private is not correct ( see access=private?uselang=en ).

Do these roads have restricted access, or may I remove the access=private tag?

Thanks

Hello,

I see that you changed the names of some streets. I have not surveyed this area, but signs in Streetside imagery show the previous street names and I have not been able to find any information about these new names. What is your source for these changes?

Thanks

Hello,
Can you please link to the state law about not naming freeways after people?

In this case, State Route 56 has been named after Ted Williams since a 1993 assembly resolution: https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1993/1993_Stats_vol4.pdf#page=1507

If there is a new law that nullifies that resolution, it would be helpful to know about it.

Hello,

I am surprised that you have tagged some roads with ref=US 101.
California law defines highway 101 as beginning in Los Angeles and extending north ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&sectionNum=401. ), so these streets are not part of it.
Is there some other reason to justify this change?

Not yet; I was waiting for an explanation but I think we've waited long enough.You're welcome to restore them if you want to.

Hello,
I'm curious about why you changed Science Center Drive from highway=unclassified to highway=residential. I changed it to highway=unclassified earlier. If my change was a mistake, I'd like to understand why so I can stop making that mistake.

Thanks

I disagree with your decision to delete these roads (in this changeset and changeset/108805481) for two reasons.

1. The OpenStreetMap data should be complete and usable for everyone, including people who are allowed to use these private roads and need to navigate in the area. This change takes away an important resource from those people.
2. We want to make a complete, detailed map of the world, which includes many features that are closed to the public. These features are still valuable for navigation, and they can be tagged access=private or access=no so that people don't mistakenly try to use them.

Is there some other reason to delete these roads?

This is a good changeset overall, I was just surprised to see the new "Broadway Pier" node at the end of the pier.
We already have a ferry terminal mapped, which is closer to the shore just south of the Broadway Pier.
Is this new ferry terminal used for some other ferry, or has the existing terminal moved?

I was surprised to see that you have again added the "CA 52" ref to the La Jolla Parkway and some of Torrey Pines Road.
The California Streets and Highways Code defines route 52 as ending at Interstate 5 ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&sectionNum=352. ). From my visits to the area, I have not seen any signs that label this section as part of state route 52.
Are there some new signs that I haven't seen, or do you have another source for this change?

Thanks for the contribution. Unfortunately, you were deceived by out-of-date aerial imagery. This area has been a construction zone for several months, but all public aerial imagery is from earlier, when there was a parking lot here. I have reverted this change.

I see that you have changed the name of Torrey Pines Scenic Drive. I surveyed this location today and found that the street signs still say "Torrey Pines Scenic Drive."
Do you have a source for this name change, or some evidence that the street signs are wrong?

In this changeset, you deleted the newly constructed air cargo building (way/854797600). You may have been misled by out-of-date aerial imagery. Surveys and Maxar Premium Imagery all show that this building exists.
Please don't delete features without looking at multiple imagery layers and seeing if someone has added the feature recently. Features can even be added based on surveys before they appear on any public aerial imagery.
In this area, Maxar Premium Imagery is usually less than a year old, Bing aerial imagery is 2-3 years old, and Mapbox Satellite is at least 4 years old.

OK, I'll change it back.

Hello,

I was surprised to see that you changed the operator and substance tags of Bay Division Pipeline No. 4.
I didn't expect this water pipeline to end up used for a different fluid.
What is your source for this change?

Thanks

Here's the full source that was too long for the source tag:
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 21, in resolution chapter 24 from the 1993 session of the California state assembly.
See page 1507 of this PDF: https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1993/1993_Stats_vol4.pdf#page=1507

I found a solid source confirming that this freeway is named the Ted Williams Freeway: Assembly Concurrent Resolution 21, in resolution chapter 24 from the 1993 session of the California state assembly.
See page 1507 of this PDF: https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1993/1993_Stats_vol4.pdf#page=1507

Unless you have something official that is more recent, I will change the name back.

The route relation ( relation/12046962 ) already provides a good representation of the historic 101 route.
For the names of roads, we need to match the present-day road signs that people use to navigate. The Pacific Coast Highway name would be appropriate for the old_name tag, but not as the primary name.

Hello,
Is there a reason why you moved the University Town Center station node (5388551999) north? It now looks like it is away from the platforms at a location that is not very helpful.
Thanks