Matt, it's probably worth noting that in the 3 months since you've deleted the road and the trails from the land you manage, the road, and most of the trail from God's Thumb have been added back (with this changeset: changeset/71321675) based on Strava Heatmap data. When they were added back they were no longer tagged as private.

By deleting them all you ended up doing is hiding the fact that access is private.

I reverted your edits (again), so the road and the trails are once again accurately tagged as private. If you continue to delete these trails they are just going to be added back, and it is likely that they will not be as well tagged as they are now, that means that they will look like they are public.

Let me remind you that access to these this road and those trails is private, the knowledge of the existence of them is not private.

I don't want to step on your toes, but I did make an edit that may have negatively impacted your edit. I just reverted a couple of changesets that I view as vandalism (changeset/68196326 and changeset/68196294). The changesets deleted a bunch of trails and one 4x4 track. This edit by you replaced one trail and extended a residential rd in the place of the 4x4 track.

I decided it'd be better to maintain the history of the original ways, rather than keep your ways. I've compared the ways with the Strava Imagery, and it looks good to me.

I wanted to give you a heads-up, in case you'd like to review the area. It'd also be nice to have other editors know about the history of vandalism in the area, and keep a bit of an eye out.

I think it's worth pointing out that these trails were already tagged as private, and that this has been explained to Matt previously (changeset/52643870). In fact the only contributions from this editor have been to delete features from this part of the map.

With knowledge of this history I can only view this as vandalism of the map.

I have reverted the two vandalizing changesets.

Hi, woodpecker, thanks for your question.

I moved the access restriction from the road to the gate. I did this because, despite what the individual who states he is the land owner says, the road is not *entirely* on private land, a significant portion of it is in the park itself. This section is accessible to the public by foot and bicycle. I was unable to determine the ownership of the road outside of the park (is it all private, or only part of the section outside of the park?) What is not in question is the existence of a gate, at the south end of the road. I placed the access tags on this gate, to reflect reality. To my memory, there's not even any signage on the gate, stating it's private land. Not just my memory, as I put images from that survey up on mappillary. (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=48.99529417668265&lng=-123.56890798151414&z=17&focus=map&mapStyle=osm). The pictures are not very good, and were meant more as a memory aid, then as evidence, but they might be useful.

But maybe I'm writing too much. I do not object to adding access restrictions to the section of Lighthouse Rd that is outside of the park, at the request of the ostensible landowner. From the wording of the request I am unable to tell if they do want access restrictions added, or if they want the road deleted.

I strongly feel that mapping what is objectively existing is more important than the requests of the landowner. This road objectively exists, and I do not want to see it deleted, even if that is what the landowner wants.

What is the source for this name?

That's great! I'm sure it's a fascinating trip. Have you had many restrictions to your movement from the police or army?

Let me know if you'd like any help with mapping. It's an area I'm quite interested in, and I see you use Maps.me for editing. There are more powerful editing apps, like iD or Josm. If you see something you'd like me to take a look at in Josm I'd be only too happy too.

Is this based on a visit to the location?

I found this discussion about reverting this changeset when I found this node (node/6468319591), which is incorrectly tagged (puts a description in the name value, tags it a tourist attraction, rather than a bar), poorly located (about 100m away from where it should be, on the wrong side of the road), and duplicates a preexisting node that properly locates and tags the bar in question.

While this is a small part of this changeset, if indicative, it supports reverting this changeset.

This edit adds a building called "Kadakh Renewable Energy Development Agancy" is this a typo for "Ladakh"?

Thanks for the link to the wiki page, it's interesting reading. This changeset in particular, was that based on info in the pdf you link to?

Regarding the names of Wildlife Sanctuaries, In this case I do think that following the guidelines recommended on the wiki is wise: osm.wiki/Names#Notes

I don't mean to suggest that the wiki is an authority that must be followed, just that in the case of abbreviating names it makes a good point. I'd like to follow it, and I don't see a reason to abbreviate Indian wildlife sanctuaries.

This edit makes significant changes to the outline Dachigam National Park, and a minor change to Overa Aru wildlife sanctuary. These boundaries are not visible in satellite imagery. What is the source of this edit?

I know this was quite some time ago, but I'm wondering why you added and then removed the `leisure=park` tag to this area.

I have fixed the addressing error on this building too: way/163539163/history

And another one: way/331422538/history

And this one too: way/331422517/history

It is probably worth pointing out that I posted a question on help.osm.org about this: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65629/should-riverbanks-be-tagged-as-naturalcoastline

Alright. Thanks. I started to do that, but was finding it more of a headache to figure out how it had been tagged than I expected. Then I procrastinated.

Yeah, you make valid point.

Huh. To me that feels like mapping one thing twice. Tasting rooms and breweries are not the same thing, but they are still part of the same establishment.

But I respect your judgement, if you'd rather tag the outline as the brewery and add a node for the tasting room, I'll let them be.

That's the one. I was being a bit silly prong that in the edit summery, especially because I don't expect people to read those edit summaries. At least not often.

Also I was kind ignoring the point of the article, by only tracing the curb around a traffic island, which seems pretty irrelevant for the potential uses the blog post was advocating.