text: "No. Face the cannabis shop from Soquel Drive. Walk east on the sidewalk a couple of houses. "
  
  Which you yourself said you have haven't done. I never said there wasn't a path there anyway. I said there has to be more to qualify something as a park then a path on the side of a fence that know one editing this map has ever walked down. Go walk down it with mappilary. It shouldn't be that hard. 
  
  "You simply can't say "county GIS data is often inaccurate" while comparing my data in the map sourced from it UNLESS you have something better with which to compare."
  
  1. Things can be inaccurate on their own. For instance, someone can color a page really badly in a coloring book. We don't need another color book to compare theirs to before we can say it's inaccurately colored though. 
  
  2. The source doesn't have to be "better." It can also be equal. Although, OSM luckily OSM provides multiple sources to confirm things that's are better then GIS department imports and people are using them all to clean up horrible GIS department jobs. Those are the facts. I'm not even sure how you think they are comparably or how you think "A single GIS import is better then everything else" is even an argument for something. I never said they were better anyway. That's not how science works.
  
  
  "that might be wrong." Maybe, but not just with that assertion"
  
  No, it's not just my assertion. It's based on looking at the images that OSM provides. Again, everyone uses them. If they were completely crap and useless like you insinuate then they wouldn't. If you don't like me using the tools OSM provides to confirm things, take that up with them. It's not my problem. This isn't your local GIS departments map. 
  
  "you'll have to offer more (better) than that."
  
  Your the one with the weak argument that it's a public path that leads to a park when you've only driven by it. 
  
  
  
  
  
  