Done by mistake, will fix

OK, I will close with this:
My only objection to tagging routes passable by vehicles as highway=track that are not on the park map and thus not legal to drive on, is that they will not provide an easy way for users of the standard rendered map to find the legal roads. I think many of the spider webs of trails are from before the land was taken over by the state.

Second, and more importantly, many if not most of the tracks mapped, especially in the northern section are actually fire breaks that are not passable except maybe by specialized vehicles. Anything that is a bright even white is pretty much a fire break. Even the well traveled legal tracks show two distinct ruts and shoulders to drain the water. This is more noticeable in the ESRI imagery right now as it is higher res and from the dry season.

Well I am not sure what the correct tag would be for routes used by rangers that are closed to the public other than setting the vehicle allowed access to private or permit. I THINK it would be permissible to use highway=path and motor_vehicle=permit. That would better convey the intended use which is for hunters to walk on and rangers to patrol on quads or pickups. That would render better also.
Do be careful, it is very hard to tell roads (or areas where vehicles have churned up the ground) from fire breaks. In areas like this they run a tractor with a plow to create a 10' wide break in the vegetation to split the region up into squares in case a fire breaks out. They are not usually passable by vehicles as they are very loose sand. They usually look a brighter white than roads.
The legal roads are on this map: https://myfwc.com/media/5662/yuccapensunit.pdf

Sequencer, glad to see you helping out. I originally added Yucca Pens to the map. I see you added a number of new "Roads". Were you doing this from just the imagery, or do you have experience with the area. I mapped all the roads that were open to vehicular traffic. It looks like the ones you mapped were at best ranger access roads off-limits to the public and some look like they might be fire breaks.
My point is that it makes it more difficult for people who are trying to legally navigate the area to find their way. Maybe they should have been tagged as paths rather than roads to make their intended purpose clearer.

Looks like you had a bad import south of Punta Gorda. Many (thousands maybe) of islands are duplicated and have different tags than the existing ones.

While I would have preferred you left these as-is, I believe you made a mistake tagging many of these.

I think there should be a closed way tagged as leisure=swimming_pool for the pool and a closed way untagged or barrier=fence for the patio. These should be added to a relation (inner/outer) tagged highway=pedestrian;area=yes or leisure=outdoor_seating or area:highway=footway, etc.

As it is the outer way has new tags, thus covering the pool and the original tags are still on the relation. See way/628904395 for example

*for cases of large open public plazas, etc.

I see you have been re-tagging all the highway=pedestrian;area=yes ways in town to area:highway=footway. When I chose the tag for areas like this against other competing tags, I considered several things: was this a correct tag, I believe so, see highway=pedestrian for the case where area=yes; Is it in common use in the map, again the other competing tags are used very infrequently; Is it supported by the built in editor iD (in my case), it was, area:highway is not; finally, had it been adopted by the major renderers, it had, but area:highway is not rendered.
I ask you to reconsider these changes.

I noticed you changed Maud street back to a service road. It has recently been closed to public traffic and changed to a walkway. It does have a gate for authorized vehicles (shop owners can drive on it when the mall is closed to the public). This was indicated by the motor_vehicle=destination tag.

Wrong description: Added Charlotte High School.