sure, and that's good. we can definitely use one.

couple things to note:
* passes/mountains shouldn't be moved unless there is a reason - we've been trying to get these aligned with the latest 3dep lidar scans, which are unlikely to coincide with administrative boundaries. moving Arc Pass, as an example, puts it quite a ways to the south of the true saddle point
* adding them to the boundary makes importing boundary updates somewhat more tedious/annoying and (tool dependent) can break the somewhat questionable practice of linking these nodes from their wikidata entities
* the Sierra runs much further north and south than is currently modeled
* type=multilinestring isn't a valid outer for the Mojave boundary relation - the Sierra crest is quite a ways away anyways
* and the new Mojave looks like a duplicate (same wikidata/etc) of the existing Mojave relation

mountain range tagging is fairly nacent, and inconsistent. take a look at other examples around the US (and world) https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2fXO for ideas. there has been a somewhat recent push to revive type=multilinestring.

anyways, hope this didn't come off as too abrasive. it's something that is useful just a bit complicated to complete.

this looks a bit odd, what are you trying to accomplish with the Sierra Nevada relation?

yep, wasn’t saying it was an issue at all. most of the sole trails to a lake have been named after the lake in osm. that’s what everyone calls them anyways.

only a handful of trails in Yosemite have official names.. the trailheads do, of course.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174360494

I removed everything that appears to be a duplicate
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172372725

relations are collections of ways and/or nodes. hiking route relations are described here route=hiking . for most trails they are a a collection of ways (segments really) that make up a named trail. we don't use them consistently in the Sierra and less frequently in Yosemite since most trails don't have names. there are trails like the Mist Trail that have names and a corresponding relation relation/6451906 or others like the Forsyth Trail that have names but are missing a route relation way/131325321

generally speaking, they make it easy for apps and sites to find hiking trails and routes. sites like https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12.0/38.0845/-119.5399 are purpose built for this.

when trails get really really long many tools start struggling to manage the size.. so now relations are capped to some number of members (like 2000-ish) but even that can get a bit unwieldy. so we break the big relations down into smaller ones. for the PCT the smaller relations are modeled after PCTA's section names. in this particular case CA section I extends from Tuolumne Meadows to Sonora Pass. see https://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/maps/overview-maps/ for more info.

the PCT sections are members of a superroute relation (a relation of relations) - this way we can still piece together the entire PCT - here it is relation/1225378

rangers stations near the PCT don't need to be included in the PCT relation - it's for the trail, trailheads, etc - I already removed it. thanks for the contributions!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172768510

any chance you know (or can update) the trail visibility? I only see maybe a small section visible from satellite, and nothing obvious shows up on strava or 3dep.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172964652

looks like this is already tagged on the building - see way/1427236740 ?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172082933

it looks like some of these are duplicates of existing toilets - can you confirm? here's an example node/13166941738#map=19/37.874328/-119.353428&layers=N
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172372725

it is helpful when the change description is more descriptive - a summary of what has been changed. this aids the community when reviewing. please consider this in the future, thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171749142

was the weighbridge tag added here intentional? way/996657748/history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171899484

looks like there there are two relations - see relation/16264390 and relation/16110926 . can you take a look?

no problem at all, just update the hours and upload - the same process you followed for this change - they are immediately published.

reviews are after the fact and best effort by the community. I have a feed setup in osmcha for changes in Kings Canyon and usually take a peek within a few days or weeks. others do something similar.

anyhow welcome to OSM and thanks for your contribution :-)

are the hours correct on the Grant Grove Visitor center? the website says 8-5 in the summer https://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/visitorcenters.htm
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171144386

Hi, welcome to OSM. Aside from adding comments or sending a message there isn’t a way of suggesting a change- when you change the map it takes effect immediately.

Applications that use the OSM database typically update much less often. It will take weeks to months (or sometimes years) for a small change like this to get propagated everywhere. For example Caltopo does an update 2-4 times a year. Gaia used to do it every couple weeks but has slowed down significantly. So be patient.

Generally speaking it is often better to use access tags (like access=no) and lifecycle prefixes (closed:highway=path) to prevent a way from being used and showing up on a map. In this case deleting it is probably fine though but a discussion on the original changeset changeset/59557696 would have been a good place to start. The author has been working on tagging climbing routes and is pretty active.

Thanks again for the contribution and let me know if I can help with mapping trails around the park

are these ranks defined somewhere?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170797500

if this alternate isn't an official trail (like a ducked route around snow) please add informal=yes and a sac_scale= (if suitable). thanks for the update!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170503642

for meadow restoration consider using the `closed:highway` lifecycle prefix and/or tagging access=no. the old trail will show up on satellite and gps heatmaps for many years and often get mapped as new trails again and again when they are deleted.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170587849

hi! the trail updates look to be a bit further off than the current Strava heatmap + 3DEP LiDAR data implies. was there an issue on the ground with the existing path? satellite is often misaligned around this part of the park
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170637090