Oh, yes sorry. That's carried over from the BLM GIS data I used for some routes. I need to go through and delete those.

Hi, I see this changeset deleted the Toquerville Twister dirt bike trail and a lot of other trails in this area. I re-mapped a lot of them based on current imagery and information I was able to find about them online. Just FYI, please don't delete trails unless you can confirm they no longer exist on the ground.

I have reverted parts of this changeset. You deleted part of the Black Jump trail leaving it disconnected from other routes. I visited that area last week and verified the trail is still present on the ground. Please do not delete any features you do not directly know don't exist on the ground.

I reverted your changes to the Hey Joe Canyon road. Per OSM rules, we should map what is on the ground. Because this remains a two track road on the ground, it should continue to be tagged as highway=track. Access changes in the BLM travel plan did not remove it from the ground.

Hi, I wanted to let you know I reverted your change to the Tenmile Canyon road. Since that is still a two track road on the ground it should remain tagged as highway=track, motor_vehicle=no. The change in access rules did not alter the physical nature of the road on the ground.

Hi, I see you've been changing closed roads in the Labyrinth Rims area to foot tracks. Please refrain from doing this, as roads that are still visible as two tracks on the ground should remain tagged with highway=track, vehicle=no. The change in access rules does not alter the physical route on the ground. If a route is still a two track on the ground that could be driven by vehicles if it were allowed, it should be tagged as highway=track.

Hey, I see you've been changing road access permissions for the Labyrinth Rims travel plan. Thanks for doing that as it needed to be done, but if you do any more please only set them as motor_vehicle=no (and for most of them bicycle=no too), not access=no. Access=no is incorrect as foot travel is still allowed on the roads closed in the travel plan, which were only closed to vehicles (and in most cases also to bikes). The travel plan didn't affect foot travel and the roads still exist on the ground as track roads, so they should still be mapped as tracks with access=yes, motor_vehicle=no. Thanks.

'Reverting this changeset as the Labyrinth Rims travel plan has not taken effect yet. It will not take effect until at least the end of the 30 day appeal period, and likely not until after the 45 day period after that for the DOI Board of Land Appeals to rule on any petitions for a stay. After it does take effect, only the access tags should be changed. The roads should all still be mapped as highway:track as they will still be present on the ground for many years and can still be used by foot and horse, so access:no is not appropriate.

'

changeset/142325184

'Reverting this changeset as the Labyrinth Rims travel plan has not taken effect yet. It will not take effect until at least the end of the 30 day appeal period, and likely not until after the 45 day period after that for the DOI Board of Land Appeals to rule on any petitions for a stay. After it does take effect, only the access tags should be changed. The roads should all still be mapped as highway:track as they will still be present on the ground for many years and can still be used by foot and horse, so access:no is not appropriate.

'

changeset/142325073

Greetings. I wanted to let you know I will be reverting this changeset as the Labyrinth Rims travel plan has not taken effect yet. It will not take effect until at least the end of the 30 day appeal period, and likely not until after the 45 day period after that for the DOI Board of Land Appeals to rule on any petitions for a stay. After it does take effect, only the access tags should be changed. The roads should all still be mapped as highway:track as they will still be present on the ground for many years and can still be used by foot and horse, so access:no is not appropriate.

Hello, I see you have a lot of edits in this one that say "removed non-system road". If the road exists on the ground, it should not be removed from OSM. Rather you should edit the access tags to reflect allowed modes of travel. I have added this road back as I verified it exists on the ground. I cannot verify allowed modes of travel at this time, but it appears to be a county road and is regularly used by vehicles even though it is not on the MVUM for the area.

Update: After more research I discovered the new mostly does not follow the alignment of the old trail, and the old trail will indeed be closed. I changed the access tags back to closed and stubbed out the new trail based on the Forest Service map of where it is. Someone will need to refine that with a GPS track this spring.

FYI, the Lost Lake trail has been adopted as an official system trail by the Forest Service, which constructed an official trailhead and realigned the trail to be more sustainable last fall. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0vWJetZD8Qe36nu7Z3CYuMMFQS75KhPnrENjckDwhfLd8byic2vhiv9ymCpAs9EgMl&id=100063536294941&mibextid=Nif5oz

I have not edited the trail to reflect to new alignment yet so that will need to be done at some point in the future, preferably after someone hikes it and records a GPS track.

Ah ok, gotcha.

I just added a note to the way.

Just to clarify, 315.2 is open, just shown in the wrong place on government maps. Just making sure you're not tagging that one as abandoned.

Are you asking about the spur road to the top of Sheep Mountain, FR 315.2 on the MVUM? The MVUM shows the wrong location for that road. I drove it and GPSed it myself in September and it's about a quarter mile east of where the MVUM and FS GIS data shows it. There is no road where the MVUM shows it. My mapping in OSM shows the correct location.

Not sure what you mean. Other imports I've done have been similar one off boundary updates such as boundaries for new wilderness areas and some open OHV areas, also using USG GIS data. I've also imported some individual roads from BLM GIS data sets, typically in combination with manual tracing and editing. None of that qualifies as mass importing as I understand it.

Sorry, no, because I thought that rule only applied to mass data imports, not to importing a single feature.

Actually those were both duplicate lines I missed deleting. I just went in and deleted both of those.