Hi, thanks for your contributions! Is Guinavah-Malibu campground re-opened?

Oh, I see. Thanks for your response! I'm really glad to hear that you're using multiple sources and not blindly going off land ownership boundaries. (IMO using just the boundaries is OK as long as we're certain they correlate 1:1 with access in a given area.) Thanks for your contributions!! Like I said, I think access data is extremely valuable for a lot of different applications!

Perhaps I've asked this before, so I apologize if that's the case.
Is your source for these access restrictions inference based on land ownership boundaries? I appreciate you working on this since I think road access data is really valuable for routing and the road network, arguably OSM's core feature. This is a double-edged sword, too, since incorrectly tagged access can have a huge negative effect on routing usefulness. This is something that has impacted me directly as a data consumer in the past.
Anyway, I just want to be sure we aren't incorrectly assuming access. Let me know what you think. And thanks for your contributions!!! :)

We'd better hope the river never forks a third time or we'll have "South Divide North Branch South Fork Ogden River"!

Thanks for catching that!

In this case, could a member of the public park at the Quick Quack lot for a fee? Otherwise I wonder if perhaps access=customers might be more appropriate.

Howdy! A couple suggestions:
- For an orchard such as the one by Larsen Street, it doesn't make sense to add individual trees. For larger areas of tree cover, you should use an area enclosing the group such as orchard or natural=wood.
- For a row of trees, you can use natural=tree_row.

Gotcha, thanks!

Gotcha, thanks for investigating! Funny we're talking about this because over on the forum there is a fiery debate and reconciliation regarding what it means to be a path, what counts as a path, and all manner of related topics. Perhaps you were aware already.
Anyway, in this case specifically (and in general) I'm open to tagging methods other than my preferred method. My vote for this segment is what I mentioned earlier: highway=path, informal=yes, visibility=poor or no. Let me know what you think, and thanks for your contributions!

Oh, gotcha. Thanks! I didn't know they had separated out the turning lanes eg osm.org/way/1317734951 .

Howdy. Looks like user Oregonian3 removed many of these track roads in their recent changeset 156871244. I commented there too to notify them. Perhaps one of you is using newer imagery than the other? Let's see if we can find out what the problem is. Here's a website that allows us to see a little more detail in the history of one of those ways: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1308933907

Looks like user Ezra Jenks just added some of those track roads in changeset 155487489. I'll comment there too to let them know. Perhaps one of you is using newer imagery than the other? Best to discuss, I think.

I see that you added layer=-1 to this school building, meaning that it's underground. Was that intentional?

Did they add physical barriers to these intersections recently?

What is DERR?

I was able to hike out to Bob Stewart Peak last summer via the trail (apparently) named Brushy Springs Trail. Were you able to verify it isn't accessible anymore? If not, I'd say an informal path with poor visibility is still appropriate based on my memory of that area.

Hi, can you give some more info about the reasoning and/or methodology of what you're doing here?

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. Relatify is (I think) a transit route relation editor, as specified by the relevant original changeset: osm.org/changeset/154939095

Does "duplicate way" mean there were two ways sharing the same nodes right on top of one another? Looks like Relatify is creating these problems somehow...?

Makes sense. Thanks for the info!! :)