These tags were imported for several units of the Eel River Wildlife Area and the Headwaters Forest Reserve from California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife GIS files. I think they're self explanatory and helpful for future maintenance of these areas in OSM. But I've prefixed all these non-OSM tags with "cdfw:" (ie, "cdfw:REV_DATE", etc) for clarity.

Good questions (all three)
1. Table Bluffs: Agreed. Superfluous NAME tag removed
2. Mike Thompson WA: Name used to be "South Spit WA". CDFW still use that name in their GIS data, so the NAME= tag from GIS metadata was imported to document that old name.
3. Headwaters Forest Reserve: Disagreement between BLM (founders) and CDFW (operators). BLM called it a "Forest Reserve". Later, CDFW changed it to "Ecological Forest Reserve", but the name didn't stick. Everyone uses the simpler BLM name (Taken for the OSM name= tag). CDFW uses it's newer name in GIS data and website, so the CDFW NAME= was imported for documentation. I added a note= for clarification

Hi karl-marx,
It would be helpful, to those of us who made the previous edits that you re-edited, if you would describe what you were intending to improve, and why you felt it was necessary. We might learn something from your work. Why this changeset, for example?
Thanks!

Hi Glebius,
I wasn't aware that I had broken this road up - I think someone else is responsible... probably a long time ago. I think I may have changed it's alignment slightly while I was drawing woodland boundaries (I've been using Maxar Premium, which I've found to be pretty accurate, and up-to-date, so I've trusted it for alignment purposes) but I didn't think I changed any of Cathermola Road's tags. I've never hiked or biked that road, so generally I wouldn't change things like tracktype= or access=. And having checked the history of the sections of the road I can't find any tag changes that I made. I maybe wrong - can you show me where I changed something? But in any case, if you are familiar with the road "on the ground" and want to retag it's characteristics - I have no objections at all. Go for it!
And thanks for the positive feedback on the woodland boundaries- much appreciated!

You're very welcome...

I'm not a local, but the description in the website reads "This 472-acre site includes one of the last open stretches of beach on the Strait of Juan de Fuca between Port Angeles and Neah Bay that is easily accessible.". It doesn't sound like the large collection of areas you have tagged as Shipwreck Point NRCA is ALL part of this NRCA.

Some of these nodes still apparently exist. Can they be safely deleted ?

Thanks, Steve. Change made. Check it out at your convenience. BTW, a decade or so back, that corner of BCR was a Christmas tree farm, and there was selective timber harvesting beyond that, so the original "forest" boundary was probably correct back before MROSD bought the area.
Cheers...

Steve, this big multipolygon, tagged landuse=forest (ie, forestRY), at it's top-right corner, overlaps a considerable chunk of MROSD's Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. This is clearly incorrect - MROSD isn't doing forestry on these lands. I was about to trim the overlapping part from the forestry area, and leave the rest intact. You're the latest editor of this landuse area, so I wanted to check with you before going ahead. Any objections?

Thanks for re-checking. Agreed. And I agree that attempting to ride a bike over the bridge would be foolhardy if there are pedestrians about. I suspect the lack of a "cyclists dismount" sign is an oversight. Probably when someone gets hurt they'll put one there :(
Best..

Yeah... I actually walked it, and took some photos on both sides of the bridge. There are a couple of no-cycling signs on the east side of the bridge, that are a bit ambiguous, but when considered carefully they refer to the gravel-surfaced walking trails that branch off from the main asphalted trail. No signs at all on the west side. I could show you the photos, but take a look for yourself. If you disagree, let me know.
Cheers..

OK, good. I'll make the changes, but I'll leave your good LG Creek Trail changes. Kudos for all your other changes, BTW. Very useful...

Hi Belmemes,
I've been looking at your recent editing of the trails in St. Joseph's Hill. Your changeset says the trails were "unmaintained track roads", and I guess that's why you consider them paths rather than tracks. But the wiki characterizes paths as " not intended for motorized vehicles" and tracks as " that are suitable for two-track vehicles, such as tractors or jeeps. If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be tagged as highway=path. ". For general multipurpose trails in wild lands, this distinction is followed by all just about all mapping around California (and elsewhere AFAIK).
Most of the trails in St.Joseph's Hill are in fact wide enough for vehicles, and are definitely used by Open Space District Ranger truck patrols, and if necessary by emergency vehicles. So I would maintain that the existing definition of these trails was correct. The only trails that are truly paths (ie, too narrow for vehicles) that I can think of off the top of my head would be the Brother's Bypass, the Flume, and the Serpentine Trails. I'm pretty familiar with the SJH Preserve because I volunteer with the MidPeninsula Open Space District, and do trail patrol there (on foot and riding in District trucks on occasion) frequently.
What do you think? Would you buy the above point of view?? I want to change the trail designations back to the way they were, but didn't want to do so without discussing with you first.

Hi Anthony, you just renamed Hwy 9 between Saratoga and Hwy 35. This road has two names in local current use - "Congress Springs Road", and "Big Basin Way". Now both name= and name_1= tags are set to "Congress Springs Road".
Certainly both names should be tagged (for what it's worth, both Google and Bing maps show both names, though I'm not relying on them). What was your source for removing "Big Basin Way"?

Hello user_5359. Thanks for the welcome, but I've been doing this since around 2013 :)
Check the wiki at osm.wiki/Addresses
Note that "tags can be added to.... polygons representing the perimeter of the site". However, I'll change the Zerowaste building address because that's obviously the main building.

Thanks for the fast reply. And kudos for cleaning up the geometry, and the import of the Marine Protected Areas. I hear what you're saying but, with respect, I'm not convinced that lots of little relations beats beats simple ways sharing nodes in terms of complexity of mapping - and particularly of maintenance. I'm not familiar with the reltoolbox plugin, but will take a look. Do you know other mappers who use this approach? Certainly it renders OK, and I don't know of any explicit rules being broken.
But it seems unusual to me, and I think it's likely that no-one else has noticed, that I may throw the question out onto talk_US or OSM-Talk to see if other people think it's "best practice". At least I'd like to know if the rest of us should be mapping stuff this way.
Cheers

Hi glebius,
I was wondering why you went to such a lot of work to "properly multipolygonize" a lot of the Monterey waterfront? Is there an advantage to having building footprints, pedestrian areas, etc, all defined as multipolygons? Multiple closed ways (areas) are allowed to share nodes in OSM (JOSM makes it quite simple) but all these multipolygons seem unecessarily complicated.
Thanks!

Hi hwescott,
I wondered why you're using leisure=park on the Smith River NRA and the Six Rivers National Forest? This is usually reserved for small, mainly grassy, maintained urban spaces. See the wiki definition, and how the Klamath NF is tagged.

The description of this changeset should have read: "Update Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve.... etc".

You are correct. The road is "Bridgers Close", and the unnecessary recreation and the temporary "fixme" was a bit of editing clumsiness on my part. I have corrected the road name.