This is done in osm.org/changeset/103853052
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103849349

no problem, I sent them an email and I'll update the name here.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103849349

it was previously slightly off too, I updated this using the current 2018 US Topo in https://osmcha.org/changesets/103849283
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103804905

while the gnis id and current map show this as Eve Lake, it is clearly Ewe Lake on the older USGS quads. it seems likely that Ram and Ewe Lakes should be next to each other, I'm inclined to say this is a data error in gnis that should be fixed- perhaps send them an email to have it corrected? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-do-i-report-error-geographic-names-information-system-database
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103849349

it was previously slightly off too, I've fixed it up in osm.org/changeset/103849283
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103593979

thanks for fixing up some of these, this area was neglected for some time.

in general it's best to follow whatever tagging scheme is being used in the area. most of the lakes around here are tagged with `salt=yes` if they are salt lakes, other lakes are assumed to be freshwater without `salt=no`. same for `tidal`. it doesn't hurt anything but it's redundant.

as for the group relation... it appears to be slowly growing in popularity (see type=group and type=cluster). the idea is to capture related lakes into a named relation and to name individuals only if they have a name (whether or not it's present on the topo). I try to add group relations when I can but there are plenty remaining to fix.

this is already part of the Stanford Lakes group relation, it doesn't look like this individual lake is named on the topo. I'm also wondering if salt/tidal tags are useful here? they're typically not set.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103599842

not sure about this area but in the sierra highway=footway indicates it is a paved path; highway=path is a regular trail or route (not so intuitive)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101895645

doh, it is incorrectly labeled in the current US Topo maps. the older quads are correct.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102364701

what sort of a bench is here?

thanks for the help :-)

thanks for catching this
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102138052

instead of using alt_name2 for the bridges, have you looked at using bridge:name instead? I believe it is more standard
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102150149

cool, just didn't know if you were missing riverbank relations by accident or if you'd come back on a second pass. thx

I'm not sure what the right tagging is but now this is inconsistent, osm.org/relation/1167181 is still using waterway=riverbank
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101945534

is it possible to cut down the size of this? not everywhere in Sequoia NP is filled with trees

no worries, this one is a bit unusual even for Yosemite

I see you reapplied my earlier naming of the lower part of the JMT. I changed it back to the JMT after our last hike, I looked at the signs on the way down and didn't see anything referencing the Mist Trail below the bridge/bathroom area where it forks. Did I miss something? Perhaps the Mist Trail should be an alt_name instead?

where do you see a trail here? I don't see it on satellite and there is only a single trace on Strava.

Please use GPX tracks in areas like this, satellite imagery does not align well in the Sierra. Many of these edits were not necessary and reverted changes I made this summer from Strava and my own GPX tracks.