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.