Hi Minh, Thanks for the explanation. boundary=forest_compartment makes sense in the context of industrial forestry. It seems strangely counter-intuitive to apply it to protected_areas which often have nothing at all to do with forests. However, I guess this isn't the forum to discuss..

Hello Minh,
A question about your edits of Bear Creek Redwoods boundaries a few months back in 2025. BCR is actually two sections - one open to the public and one closed. This used to be represented by two separate boundary relations. I suspect that it was your edits that merged both areas into a single boundary relation for the whole open space. If I'm right, can you tell me what was the rationale for this change? (If I'm wrong - apologies, and I'll keep looking for whoever made the change.)
Kind regards - Doug

The boundary for Guadalupe National Park is not rendering in the Standard or the Tracestrack Topo map layers (Though it does render in the Map Tiler OMT layer).

Thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for the long delay in responding. I should have deleted all these USFWS shapefile tags. My mistake, and many thanks to user mueschel for correcting it!

Why are some of the new trails in BCR tagged access=no? Are they not open to the public?

Hi user_5359,
I left these keys there in error when I imported the latest boundary from the US FWS website, in error. I've removed them. Thanks for pointing this out..
Regards
Doug

Hi Viki,
Yes, personally I think protect_class for Butano and most California state and even most county parks should be 5. They are primarily protected wild lands with limited and controlled recreational access. I don't see them as "Community Life" areas (21). And I live here and hike them a lot. And most CA parks are already tagged this way.
Regards.. doug

Hi!
Could you help me understand why the protect_class for Butano State Park should be a 21 rather than a 5? This park (like most CA parks) is essentially a protected nature preserve. Recreation activities are limited to low-impact in certain areas. It conforms well to IUCN catgory V.

These tags were imported for several units of the Eel River Wildlife Area and the Headwaters Forest Reserve from California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife GIS files. I think they're self explanatory and helpful for future maintenance of these areas in OSM. But I've prefixed all these non-OSM tags with "cdfw:" (ie, "cdfw:REV_DATE", etc) for clarity.

Good questions (all three)
1. Table Bluffs: Agreed. Superfluous NAME tag removed
2. Mike Thompson WA: Name used to be "South Spit WA". CDFW still use that name in their GIS data, so the NAME= tag from GIS metadata was imported to document that old name.
3. Headwaters Forest Reserve: Disagreement between BLM (founders) and CDFW (operators). BLM called it a "Forest Reserve". Later, CDFW changed it to "Ecological Forest Reserve", but the name didn't stick. Everyone uses the simpler BLM name (Taken for the OSM name= tag). CDFW uses it's newer name in GIS data and website, so the CDFW NAME= was imported for documentation. I added a note= for clarification

Hi karl-marx,
It would be helpful, to those of us who made the previous edits that you re-edited, if you would describe what you were intending to improve, and why you felt it was necessary. We might learn something from your work. Why this changeset, for example?
Thanks!

Hi Glebius,
I wasn't aware that I had broken this road up - I think someone else is responsible... probably a long time ago. I think I may have changed it's alignment slightly while I was drawing woodland boundaries (I've been using Maxar Premium, which I've found to be pretty accurate, and up-to-date, so I've trusted it for alignment purposes) but I didn't think I changed any of Cathermola Road's tags. I've never hiked or biked that road, so generally I wouldn't change things like tracktype= or osm.wiki/Tag:access=. And having checked the history of the sections of the road I can't find any tag changes that I made. I maybe wrong - can you show me where I changed something? But in any case, if you are familiar with the road "on the ground" and want to retag it's characteristics - I have no objections at all. Go for it!
And thanks for the positive feedback on the woodland boundaries- much appreciated!

You're very welcome...

I'm not a local, but the description in the website reads "This 472-acre site includes one of the last open stretches of beach on the Strait of Juan de Fuca between Port Angeles and Neah Bay that is easily accessible.". It doesn't sound like the large collection of areas you have tagged as Shipwreck Point NRCA is ALL part of this NRCA.

Some of these nodes still apparently exist. Can they be safely deleted ?

Thanks, Steve. Change made. Check it out at your convenience. BTW, a decade or so back, that corner of BCR was a Christmas tree farm, and there was selective timber harvesting beyond that, so the original "forest" boundary was probably correct back before MROSD bought the area.
Cheers...

Steve, this big multipolygon, tagged landuse=forest (ie, forestRY), at it's top-right corner, overlaps a considerable chunk of MROSD's Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. This is clearly incorrect - MROSD isn't doing forestry on these lands. I was about to trim the overlapping part from the forestry area, and leave the rest intact. You're the latest editor of this landuse area, so I wanted to check with you before going ahead. Any objections?

Thanks for re-checking. Agreed. And I agree that attempting to ride a bike over the bridge would be foolhardy if there are pedestrians about. I suspect the lack of a "cyclists dismount" sign is an oversight. Probably when someone gets hurt they'll put one there :(
Best..

Yeah... I actually walked it, and took some photos on both sides of the bridge. There are a couple of no-cycling signs on the east side of the bridge, that are a bit ambiguous, but when considered carefully they refer to the gravel-surfaced walking trails that branch off from the main asphalted trail. No signs at all on the west side. I could show you the photos, but take a look for yourself. If you disagree, let me know.
Cheers..

OK, good. I'll make the changes, but I'll leave your good LG Creek Trail changes. Kudos for all your other changes, BTW. Very useful...