USGS Topo clearly has this peak as "Sheephead Mountain" as does the GNIS record. I have reverted this changeset.

USGS Topo clearly has this peak as "Sheephead Mountain" as does the GNIS record. I have reverted this changeset.

USFS has this road clearly named "Sheephead Mountain Road" to match the local "Sheephead Mountain" peak. The change to "Spearhead Mountain Road" was erroneous and I have reverted it.

This section of road is either named "Thing Valley Road" (according to USFS and USGS) or "Desert View Road" (according to SanGIS). The USFS name is more likely to be correct as this road is managed by USFS. There is no evidence to support the fictitious name in the prior changeset so I have reverted the change.

USGS Topo clearly has this peak as "Sheephead Mountain" as does the GNIS record. I have reverted this changeset.

Also, for what it's worth, I got a reply from Ranger Swartlander at the Redding BLM field office about the designated roads and trails on the OHV map that cross private land. BLM does indeed manage those roads and trails and they are open to public access. However, access to the private land off the trails is not permitted. So, the access conditions in the BLM PDF are what should be mapped for public access.

I think you've misunderstood. The only access conditions that apply in this area are the ones tagged on the highways themselves.

I'm optimistic that there will be a broader discussion among members of the OHV community about how to map areas like this, so we may have some broader community consensus soon.

It doesn't sound like we're going to come to an agreement about mapping the OHV area, since I think it should stay on the map as is.

But I hope we're both in agreement that the roads and trails in the area should be mapped with appropriate access conditions.

I don't think that mapping the area as BLM has designated it gives the impression that the entire area is driveable. I do think it's helpful to identify the area for recreation, because that's clearly the land manager's intention. You've suggested deleting the area completely. Wouldn't that leave important recreational information off the map?

I can see that some of the trails and roads leave BLM land and cross into land managed by other federal agencies or private land, but it's up to BLM to determine which routes they manage and make available to the public and I'm certain they wouldn't be sending people onto private land if they didn't have the authority to do so. (Much of this is former mining land for which BLM may have retained certain rights.) Do you disagree with the access conditions that BLM has published for the area? If so, why?

I think that limiting the area to the parcels that are shown as "owned" by BLM would be arbitrary and incorrect, since BLM's own maps of the area show BLM-authorized OHV roads and trails that extend outside of those parcels. What basis do you have to suggest that boundaries BLM has identified for this area are wrong?

Hi Adamant1! The boundary data comes from the BLM GIS hub and specifically from this data set: https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/blm-ca-off-highway-vehicle-designations/explore?location=40.719376%2C-122.390878%2C10.99

When you say "it's mostly the trails," that's correct. OHV driving is permitted only on designated routes within this area. I haven't measured, but BLM says that more than 250 miles of roads and trails in the area are open to OHV use.

You might be interested in these additional BLM resources:

https://www.blm.gov/visit/chappie-shasta

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/Chappie-Shasta_2019_Final_508.pdf

I just noticed that osm.org/way/319058105 ended up without any tags. Was this supposed to be a land use area or administrative boundary?

Thanks for catching the duplicate node. Sorry I missed that. The line was an attempt to reflect the broader area of the basin, but a node is fine.

Hi! There's a small group on OSM Slack working on replacing all the sq* names. Would you like to join us?

Hi! It looks like you left a way hanging around with no tags and no relation memberships. Maybe it was supposed to be part of an admin boundary? osm.org/way/835361412

The Motor Vehicle Use Maps are great for confirming access restrictions but they only have route numbers, not names. The best places I've found to double check names are in the USFS Road Analysis and Environmental Assessment documents. Although they usually don't have maps, these documents usually have the route number paired with the name. And there's a trick to finding them. Just use, e.g. "3N92" site:fs.usda.gov (with the quotes) to search Google to find references to route 3N92 on the USFS web sites.

I noticed you used the USFS IVM to get some of the names for tracks in this changeset. You have to be careful with that map because it has two components: a basemap with data from an outside source, and an overlay with USFS data. If the information is in the USFS overlay, it's generally pretty good, although it's always a good idea to double check it with additional sources. The basemap data is often inaccurate, so you don't want to rely on that alone. I'm just going to take the name "Big Pine Flat Road" off of FR 3N87 because that name belongs to FR 3N92 and the other available USFS documents only refer to 3N87 by number, not by name.

Hi! I'm looking at Cactus Valley Road (aka Old Borrego Valley Road) in the ABDSP maps and Cal Parks data and it looks like it's still open to the public from CA 78 in the south, at least until it reached the park boundary and crosses onto private property. Where did you see the No Trespassing signs? Were they at the north end near Borrego Springs Road?

That makes sense. Thanks!

Hi! The original data for the node was apparently from USGS GNIS. When. I came across it, I updated it with data from USGS MRDS (Mineral Resources Data System), which is a more complete source for data on mines and quarries. There were some discrepancies between the GNIS and MRDS data, hence the source:name key. I wanted to leave the MRDS record number on the node in case there were questions about the changes from the original GNIS data. I didn't see an obvious key for that so I used mrds:id. But I can certainly change it if there's a better way to do it!

Is there a source that indicates that this mine is a military/danger area and not just an abandoned mine on USFS land?