Thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for the long delay in responding. I should have deleted all these USFWS shapefile tags. My mistake, and many thanks to user mueschel for correcting it!

Why are some of the new trails in BCR tagged access=no? Are they not open to the public?

Hi user_5359,
I left these keys there in error when I imported the latest boundary from the US FWS website, in error. I've removed them. Thanks for pointing this out..
Regards
Doug

Hi Viki,
Yes, personally I think protect_class for Butano and most California state and even most county parks should be 5. They are primarily protected wild lands with limited and controlled recreational access. I don't see them as "Community Life" areas (21). And I live here and hike them a lot. And most CA parks are already tagged this way.
Regards.. doug

Hi!
Could you help me understand why the protect_class for Butano State Park should be a 21 rather than a 5? This park (like most CA parks) is essentially a protected nature preserve. Recreation activities are limited to low-impact in certain areas. It conforms well to IUCN catgory V.

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.