Hi DwightTee, thanks for your contributions! I've reviewed your edits and for the most part they look good. A couple of suggestions:
- The "name" tag should be used only for the actual name of the trail, and not as a description. The name "Horses only trail" is probably better expressed using the tags "horse=designated" (and "foot=no", "bicycle=no" etc if these modes of travel are not allowed). The real name of the trail can then go in the "name" field (rather than alt_name as you've done here).
- You can use highway=bridleway rather than highway=path if you wish; it is meant specifically for trails meant primarily or exclusively for equestrian use.
Happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168627615

Hi DwightTee, thanks for improving the map of this campground! I reviewed your edits and they look good. One suggestion: in the future, instead of using the "name" field to describe the type of building (in this case a barn), you can use the building=barn tag and omit the name (unless the barn really has one). I fixed these for you already but just something to keep in mind for the future. Here's some guidelines for names in OSM: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168625858

Cool, seems good to me. Thanks for improving the tagging.

Thanks for the info.

I added these tags after some discussion on the OSM US Slack about how to distinguish official long-distance trails like the PCT, JMT, TRT, etc from unofficial "word-of-mouth" routes like the Lowest to Highest trail or Big SEKI Loop which may also have relations in OSM. I suggested adding operator tags to official routes and/or adding informal=yes to unofficial ones.

I was under the impression that the PCTA issued permits for the JMT, and therefore "operated" it in the sense of controlling access. But looking at this page I realize I was wrong. https://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/john-muir-trail/jmt-permits/

So this may not be the most accurate tagging. Feel free to change it or suggest something else and I can do so.

Hi bluworld, thanks for editing OSM!

As a tip for the future, it's helpful to other mappers if you keep each changeset focused on a small geographic area (like editing a few POIs in the same town). Editing things that are very far apart in a single changeset makes the changeset's bounding box very large, which is a problem for various tools (e.g. OSMCha, which people use to review edits in their local area).

No need to revert, but yeah, let's discuss this on Slack. I personally like the value `game_land` but I think we should formally define it on the wiki to make sure we (and other users) are on the same page about what it means.

@quincylvania I think that while the majority of the protected areas you retagged are indeed game lands, some are not. Not all areas operated by WDFW are managed for hunting. In particular, a bunch of small coastal wildlife areas are protected beaches or estuaries. Shore fishing and clamming seem to be allowed at these places, but hunting is not. IMO these don't meet the definition of protected_area=game_land.

Overpass query I used to look over the edits:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Ysc

Nice find! I searched for that dataset's name on data.gov and found it listed here:

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/blm-ut-recreation-sites-polygon

The license is listed as us-pd which means it's a U.S. Government Work (https://resources.data.gov/open-licenses/) and therefore in the public domain. So feel free to use it however you wish.

Hi Troyw125,

Thanks for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! Mapping benches and other amenities at parks is a great way to improve the map.

Just wanted to offer one note which is that the buildings and amenities in the park shouldn't be tagged leisure=park - that tag is for the park boundary itself. I've corrected this but just thought you might want to know for the future.

Happy mapping!

Hi joncp, just curious if you have a source for the name of this peak? I wasn't able to find any references to it online, and USGS doesn't list any name for it either.

Hi JLM62, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you've marked some private roads and property boundaries in this changeset. I wanted to let you know that while OpenStreetMap welcomes this type of information, there are specific ways to map this that should be followed. Specifically, private roads etc should be tagged "access=private", and the "name" field should include only the real name of the road and not extra information or messages. In order to correct these problems I've had to revert your changes.

Please feel free to message me if you'd like help inputting this data correctly and I'll be happy to offer some guidance. You may also wish to look at the OpenStreetMap Wiki which documents how to add this sort of information to the map.

Just wanted to +1 what Glassman said; trails that get deleted tend to get redrawn soon after. For making sure that the general public doesn't accidentally wander onto difficult routes, it's generally better to add tags to describe the route rather than delete it. sac_scale is a good one (many hiking-specific maps won't display trails above a threshold SAC scale). Another useful tag is trail_visibility (if the route is hard to find). And if the trail isn't officially maintained or operated by the park or forest service, then you can add informal=yes to indicate that it's a social trail.

Hi Greg! Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that unclassified roads were understood to be motor_vehicle=yes by default; I don't think there's any reason to keep this tag on this particular road if that's the case. I don't recall exactly why I added this tag but it was when I was doing some editing along Middle Fork Road to standardize names and alt_names on different segments and add some missing surface tags; I may have added the redundant motor_vehicle=yes on the unclassified road because I saw that it was already present on the track road further along (or perhaps I added the tag to the track road too; I can't recall). In any case, feel free to remove the tag, and I'll keep this info in mind for the future. :-)