if the distinction matters, these are often used for days or more as a base camp for day rides, and subjectively much less often (if at all) as a temporary overnight stop on a longer packing trip.

the ones I am familiar with are normal car camping campgrounds with paddocks in the vicinity. there are more of these in Inyo NF too.

maybe a camp_site=stock tag would be appropriate? there has been some effort to standardize on this key for different types of camps

I made an attempt to clean up the relation and associated way tags. This is a common problem around here.

this tool doesn't work properly for waterway relations, e.g. osm.org/relation/14901375 should have gotten the wikidata tag instead of osm.org/way/291349401 and Mine Creek was already tagged osm.org/relation/16718618.

it would be awesome if the tool could be fixed to deal with river and stream relations
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169178489

thanks for the contribution - a couple suggestions: access=no will exclude horses (and bicycles). removing access= and adding vehicle=no might be better here.

consider adding barrier=debris (or another barrier= value) to a node where the dozer pile is located
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167597224

until trails disappear from most recent satellite imagery and gpx heatmaps it is usually better to use the access tags or a closed: lifecycle prefix on the highway tag. in Yosemite it is pretty common for deleted paths to come back to life by helpful armchair mappers.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167501705

looks like this inadvertently tagged all of Mariposa as a swimming pool osm.org/way/33207307

could you try to add more descriptive comments to these changesets in the future? it helps a lot with reviews and saves us all time. thanks for the consideration and happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166490310

please take a look at osm.wiki/Hiking - hiking routes should be official trails (not use trails), and the relation members should use defined roles like "main" or "approach". I'm not sure what "path" and "way" mean. some relation validator will flag these. also make sure to keep the informal=yes tag, it looks like it was removed. this helps with many renderers and routers.

it also looks like the gps data was imported and could use some clean up. I find that a combination of LIDAR data (Yosemite has great coverage in 3DEP) and aggregated GPS tracks, like Strava, in combination with my own tracks helps quite a bit with determining the true path on the ground.

thanks for the contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166713957

I updated the operator tags

I updated it to the JMT Conservancy since it seems more accurate, but there is no single authority. originally the trail was sighted north to south, starting in Sequoia. more traditionally it is hiked starting in Yosemite. four different organizations can issue permits for travel along the JMT, five if you include the portion that overlaps with the PCT. but no permits are JMT specific - they set entry trailheads, with few exceptions on which trails can be hiked or where you can camp.

there is also the JMT Conservancy https://jmtwilderness.org/. aside from the portions of the PCT that coincide with the JMT I don’t know if the PCTA is the most specific organization in charge, if one is at all
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166544887

Hi, natural=wood is all that is needed to mark an area as a forested area. The name tag should only be used if the forest has a specific name - otherwise add additional detail to the description or note tags. Thanks for the contribution!

I noticed there are two fairly similar hiking routes - osm.org/relation/9338492 and osm.org/relation/15569997

should these be combined or are they distinct?

should the Mokelumn Coast to Crest Trail relation in here osm.org/relation/12346593/ be combined with the existing one osm.org/relation/4139386/ ?

underground pipelines should be tagged as such, they're not culverts

Please see osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dtrail_riding_station for some guidance on how to use this tag - it shouldn't go on trails or roads. Welcome to OSM!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163798763

by accident, I was looking for evidence of the old trail above the mine and saw this on satellite imagery. the building is outlined on the old USGS quads too, probably an easier place to start.

the milestone markers like osm.org/node/3964747022 seem to be out of place. are they correctly located and still relevant?

what is the criteria being used? is there a proposal I can reference?