I believe uMap is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for a map on our (and the ODF) website. Although I haven't been able to get it to accept an Overpass query yet.

It still seems like it would be beneficial (or at least not detrimental) to group them in a relation. It's not meant to be a category of general features a lot of other people might add to. It's a list of about 50 specific trees (I have a few more to add) that should remain static for the foreseeable future, and it's distinct from a few other Peace trees.

I'm open to removing the relation, maybe adding "network=OSDI Peace Trees" to each node as a substitute. The reason I made a relation is that it seemed to fit the need to have a container for the geographically distributed trees and it provided a way to display them via a single URL. I was hoping to create a customized map on our site as a replacement for an ArcGIS map. Since I wanted to use OSM for the background I though it would only be fair to put the data into OSM for others to use.

Would leaving the relation for now while I speak with the people who may be implementing the OSM-based map cause problems for the database?

Thanks, you are correct. I must have accidentally had those parking lot tags on the tree I copied and then pasted a bunch of times.

For what it's worth, I live in Oregon (and drive it regularly) and I've never heard it referred to as anything other then I5, or seen any signage with those legislated names.

I don't know what the standard practice is but it seems these kind of names would be more appropriate for a route rather than on the way it's self. Especially for something like a major interstate, the generic designation should have priority. I would assume the route would come up for anyone searching for "Purple Heart Trail".