I disagree, feel free to open a forum thread.

Yea I encountered a bunch of lines drawn in pretty silly ways noted in this discussion:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-flowlines/117361/32

so that's probably the venue

This is the sign that is posted at the entrance:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haffenreffer_Grant_of_Mount_Hope_Sign.jpg

Did you see differently?

See also this discussion:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/more-gray-areas-in-private-access-tagging/134255/4

Ref: DWG Ticket#2025101510000281

Hi folks,
What ZLima12 is describing is the US consensus on how such areas should be mapped. Comments like "your way" and "fix your mistake" are unhelpful. If you would like to debate the merits of how parks and nature reserves are tagged in OSM, please do so on the community forum, at https://community.openstreetmap.org/

I've just added the wood multipolygon. Go team!

Yes, please make the changes. Tag leisure=nature_reserve on the outer boundary, tag natural=wood polygons where the trees/natural areas are (whether inside or outside the boundary), and reduce leisure=park to just the manicured bits.

I agree with Steve's take. The wild and wooded parts cannot be leisure=park, only the manicured bits. That's a well-established US convention.

See osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands

By all means open a forum discussion.

Thanks, should be fixed in changeset/172770657

The highest_point member fails the JOSM validator, recommend filing an issue with JOSM.

Discussion at:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vandalism-user-keeps-changing-trunk-to-motorway

OSM's motorway definition at:

osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Dmotorway

Relations are just a collection of member ways. I'm not sure what you're asking.

Boundary tagging belongs on relations, not on member ways. That way member ways are not confused with the parent boundary relation by data consumers etc. If there are geometry issues, that's a separate problem that can be resolved in JOSM.

This changeset was reverted due to presence of NO TRESPASSING sign

changeset/170645170

Hi Steve - unfortunately this edit broke the boundary of Louisville. I was able to fix it, so no action required. The iD (web-based) editor will not warn when a boundary relation is malformed, and so you shouldn't use it for boundary work.

I have reverted StreetSurveyor's most recent change removing private-access tagging. This change was not discussed in the US community as required by the DWG comment upthread.

This changeset was reverted per DWG ticket #2025060410000023, changeset changeset/166993977. Undiscussed change in access tagging.

changeset/170533846

Hi, can you point me to where a node was moved? This should have been a tag change only.

Hi InsetUser,
Please see the linked discussion.