If you're going to make this many changes to all of the roads that I fixed or added myself, it would be great if you could ask me first so that I can go through and do it. I don't agree with some of the nodes you deleted and some could have been moved to preserve the curve in the road, so I'm going to have to go back through all of the these in the near future.

This ACEC was established in 2009 and the other one you deleted a lot of nodes from was established in 2007.

Why did you do this? I made this by hand using BLM's boundaries

I'm confused by what you did here. It looks like you just deleted a lot of nodes for some reason

nodes, not modes

Updated, not upper

Okay, I'll reach out to them and see what they have to say. Probably won't hear anything until Monday. That's good to know that the USGS has been responsive to all of this, though! Hopefully USFS is the same

Okay, so I overlayed the detail parcels on the polygon that you highlighted and it is in fact an empty space with no ownership data in between three polygons of Colville NF-owned parcels acquired on three separate dates. Not sure what to do with that.

If you'd like to inspect it in OSM, the data I used can be pulled from here (filter Colville National Forest using the NFSLANDUNITNAME field): https://data-usfs.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/b0c872fdf10c45f89d7d96e2c106f709_0

Hey there, jumping in a little late here but thought I should say that I agree that the boundaries should follow the real property. I have been giving their data the benefit of the doubt and tracing it as is since I can't necessarily say that I know better. Also, USFS has been known in the past to have surveyed things incorrectly to the point of private parties instigating litigation, and these gis boundaries seem to conflict with public land boundaries of just about every other state and federal agency; however, you would think the ranger stations, of all places, would be correct, so I'm not sure.

As far as those weird almost line-like polygons are concerned, those were that way in the boundary data. I have been wondering if things like those are artifacts, maybe from when they merged their detailed surface ownership parcel polygons into the simplified ownership boundaries that we use (assuming that was their process, anyway). I feel like I would need to contact them to make that call myself, but I'm open to making changes.

Yeah, unfortunately for the trail plan, there is no signage there saying not to use it, so I don't blame people for using it.

In any case, sounds good. I fixed it and added an informal trail that I have been meaning to map.

The reasons for my change were that the path was mapped in the conservation area's public access plan as a trail to be closed and that the path has not been mapped as an existing trail or unmanaged route in official documents since as late as Feb 2020. The path was brushed out at one point, but most of the debris has been moved out of the way over the years by trail users, many of them probably following the AllTrails (and Strava?) route up that path. If you prefer it to be open, I will do that, but I suggest at least that it be tagged informal to encourage people to use the designated Antoine's Summit Trail and not move through otherwise undisturbed wildlife habitat.

is there a reason for these changes? I checked the ways that you replaced to the forest service data and you left the checkboard inholdings open

Boundary, not borders! Anyway, that seems to have fixed the problem that was causing Lolo NF not to render

Okay, still wondering if you have any tips about avoiding breaking the BC border in the future, so lmk if you do!

Sorry, completely missed your comment until now! Is there something I'm doing specifically that is breaking the boundaries? Or can do to avoid breaking them? I have been disconnecting the forest boundaries from the border because the forest boundaries are not defined by the border. I've been doing so by cutting the forest ways off the border, reconnecting the edges of the forest Boundary, and then removing the national forest from the border as a relation.

So upon checking out the changes you made, it looks like I had the wrong relation for one of the small inholdings. Not sure how I missed that over and over!

I should add that I was in the middle of trying to find the problem again just now and noticed in the middle of it that the forest boundaries started rendering again

Hey, thank you! Can you let me know what was wrong? I've been trying to find it every day since I first made the changes that I did to start realigning Colville NF.

I had it on my mental list to look for it the last time I was there, but I forgot (was also tired and low on water). I'll make sure to look for it next time I'm back out there, probably August or September, but my gut feeling is that it may be overgrown now considering it has never stood out to me.