It looks like you added a new road(way/778330506) that exactly parallels road 098(which is tagged as a trail). Is their really a new road there, or should the existing way just be upgraded from a trail to a road?

Do you have first hand experience with the roads that you are upgrading from highway=track to highway=residential? Unless things have changed dramatically since i was last there, i dont think some of those are worthy of highway=residential

Hello,
Thanks for adding these trails! In the future you may want to consider using the tag highway=path instead of highway=footway for this type of trail, because on the the documentation in the wiki that tagging is more correct for this type of trail, even if the iD editor does always suggest highway=footway.

It looks like you removed the `tourism=caravan_site` tagging from this way with this edit, and it now lacks tagging that most software will be able to do anything with.

i see now that there is 1 piece of software that does use the ref tags on campsites, your website.

Im not a fan of this change, I think it makes the map less useful. Every map of Yellowstone i've ever seen that shows backcountry campsites uses whats now the ref, not the long name, The short names are also used by when booking a backcountry permit. I dont think i've seen any software that makes use of the ref tag on a campsite.

Is "Led Zepplin Road" really the official name? It's been a couple years since i've been on there, but i've never heard that name

That row of building=shed on Einos loop are rental cabins. And the building in front of them is the High Country Tavern.

Maybe not quite restored since you changed the tagging. This seems like more appropriate tagging.

It looks like this changeset removed all of the tags for the gallatin national forest relation. I have re-added them in changset #64937124

Im not 100% sure, but im under the impression this branch(all the way to darby) was called the Bitterroot Branch

The tagging natural=yes does not have any defined meaning, and doesn't get used by any software i know of, so this is basically the same as deleting the areas from OSM. Im not familiar with this area, so i dont know what this should be tagged as, but maybe it's leisure=nature_reserve

Artemesia Geyser is already in OSM, there is no need to add it again. Im removing this duplicate. Unfortunately maps with me does not show geysers. You should ask the maps with me developers to show geysers.

I suspect there is a bug in id to blame for those not having names, because i definitely put names in when i added those saddles

Thanks!

15 or so years ago MT made land owners assign names to most/all the roads on private land for e911 purposes. Lots of them are bullshit names that no one has ever used. I think the names in this area fit in that category. The "big foot" name might be technically correct on the private land portion of that road, but not on the USFS part, where it is definitely signed as 1301. But feel free to revert if you want.

P.S. Did you just happen to be looking at this area, or are you monitoring all my edits now?

Hello, When adding waterfalls on an existing waterway, the waterfall should be on a node of the existing waterway, instead of adjacent to the waterway.

Hello, When adding waterfalls on an existing waterway, the waterfall should be on a node of the existing waterway, instead of adjacent to the waterway.

Hello,
Is there a reason you deleted Kingman pass?

Hello, I was just doing a survey of trailheads in OSM and came accross the two created in this changeset. It seems like they are both tagged wrong, and should either be amenity=parking, or highway=trailhead. attributes=parking is not a commonly used tag.