Yep, that would mean another changeset is necessary. (You can't go back and modify old changesets, you can only create new ones that undo or correct.)
In this case, I'd say for an informal trail like that, having the feature exist and be inaccurate is better than nothing at all. And given your description of the river crossing, I'd say a ford feature is perfect for that. I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146478737

Yep, you got it - your fix looks great!

While looking around the area, I noticed a couple other issues: Cascade Cat Rd is tagged as a tramway, not a road. Also, the all-caps name tagging might look good to some people, but unless it's an acronym or something, things shouldn't be tagged that way. It's considered tagging for the renderer: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Lmk if that makes sense. If you don't feel like fixing that stuff, I'm happy to - I love editing OSM! Lol.

In this changeset, you deleted a piste way called Cowpuncher. You won't be able to see it now because of that.
That's great to hear that you work here, I'm sure you have some really valuable map info for the area! For map updates, it depends. If you mean the openstreetmap.org "standard" map, it's usually pretty quick, like 5 mins max. (You might need to clear your browser's cache, ie ctrl+f5, to get the updated tiles.)
If you're looking at other maps that use OSM data, it can vary wildly depending on their systems. Anywhere from hours to months.

I'm just now seeing that you've made a bunch of changes/additions to this new apartment complex. In this case, if all the buildings have the same (397) address, I would create an outer area that encompasses the whole complex. Then add the address tags to that, and remove them from the individual buildings.
Thanks again for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review here I looked over your changes. There is some debate to be had regarding what these "inner apt complex" type roads should be classified as. In this case I think I agree with you that they should be parking aisles. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. In this case, it seems to me like you meant to add an apartment complex (meaning the outer area) but you actually added a very large apartment building. In this case the critical part is building=apartments. That should be landuse=residential, residential=apartments.

Let me know if you'd like me to change that for you, or if you have any questions. Thanks again!

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great generally, except for one issue with the opening hours tag. This should use a 24h format, e.g. instead of 2pm you should put 14:00. So, the full opening_hours value should be

Su 09:00-14:00,17:00-21:00; Mo-Th 17:00-21:00; Fr 17:00-21:30; Sa 09:00-14:00,17:00-21:30

Writing hours tags can be really tricky and frustrating, so I sometimes use this tool to make sure I've got it right:
https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/

Anyway, thanks again and let me know if you have any questions!

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me here. The only minor suggestion I have is that the reference number should not be appended to the name. (osm.org/way/1240334736) Especially if it's already under the ref tag.
Thanks again, and let me know if you have any questions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. In this case, I see that you added the apts name to the one building. Do you know if the other nearby buildings are also part of Sycamore Village Apartments? If so, I'd say that the name tag should go on an area that encloses all of them. Let me know if you have questions and/or want to add that yourself, or if not I'm happy to add that or show you how. Thanks for your contribution!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks good to me, no complaints!
Thanks for your contribution!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change. Everything looks good to me. One could argue that highway=cycleway makes bicycle=yes redundant, but personally I think it doesn't hurt to be explicit. Thanks for your contribution!

To be clear, on my first note, I meant that that should be an alternate, additional way - separate from the bridge.

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything generally looks great, but here are a few comments:
- Since you say crossing is possible even without the bridge, I'd add something like highway=path, informal=yes, sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, etc. Then make a path-creek shared node with ford=yes and depth=something.
- Most of the tags on the demolished bridge could be removed, probably leaving only access=no and demolished:bridge=yes.
- Nice job on the lifecycle prefix! Those can be tricky.

Let me know if you want me to make any of those changes. As the local mapper with in-person observations I'd say you have the final word. Thanks again for your contributions!!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. In this case, this trail is tagged as a downhill piste, aka a route a downhill skier might take. (No summertime trail visibility is necessary for that.) Given that, are you sure the deletion is correct?
Let me know what you think! Thanks for your contribution, and welcome again!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks good, the only issue I see is that the road you added should be tagged highway=service, service=driveway. This tag combo is for private driveways that lead to one house.

highway=residential is for roads that give access to multiple houses, think the minor roads that meander through a neighborhood.

Anyway, thanks for your contribution, and welcome again! :)

Hi, thanks for your contribution. Since you requested a review, I looked over your changeset. Looks good!

Hi, and thanks for your contributions! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything here looks good to me.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, except that I'd say if the gallery still exists, it shouldn't be removed from OSM. In this case I might say either
1. Have both Main Street Bagels and Aspen Photo Gallery be node POIs (not merged with the building) and let the building be tagged minimally (perhaps just address etc.)
2. Let the gallery be a node POI sitting within the outer Main Street Bagels building way.
Perhaps a good question to decide would be - would you say the bagel shop takes up the whole building, and the gallery resides inside the bagel shop?

Anyway, thanks for your contributions!! Observations from local mappers are super valuable!

Hi, and welcome to OSM! A couple of tips:
- It's best to keep your changesets confined to related changes. In this case, I'd say one changeset for Logan and one for Provo.
- Overall your tags look good, but there was one church that got tagged location=Purple Driveway church. I'm guessing you meant to put loc_name the same way you did other nearby churches. I fixed that for you.

Thanks for your contributions and welcome!