Nope. But I was planning on hiking in for a few days toward the end of Summer. Hence the mapping interest in the area!

Hi Viajero. Thanks for the tagging tips. I could retag it man_made=clearcut and the regenerative growth as natural=scrub as per the guidelines. However on reflection it all feels somewhat pointless to attempt to map these clearcuts given their shear scale. I will revert to the status quo and more manageable idea of the entire area being landuse=forest.
I have to admit it did look pretty good though!

I came across it in the Spring when I was fishing the Clearwater. Bit of a surprise. Glad it worked out for ya!

Sorry it was an accident. I messed up with some keyboard shortcuts on this changeset and ended up duplicating stuff. When I tried to fix it I must have lost the tag. Thanks for noticing! I am curious why these kind of roads are marked tertiary rather than unclassified as they don't really link anywhere and don't carry much traffic...

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. As I mentioned to scruss I was using that tag to try and troubleshoot why places in the City of Edmonton all had addresses in the neighbouring City of St. Albert! That link clarifies a lot. The problem has since corrected, possibly because I added admin_level=8 to both city nodes per Canadian admin boundary guidelines (but probably not because I couldn't find any recent history of changes that would have caused the wrong city issue in the first place!) In any case my is_in tagging days are definitely over ;-)

I noticed you put a node for a business in the middle of a street. Check out the on-he-ground rule osm.wiki/How_We_Map
Don't you think the tags should go on the building way of the business? I couldn't find an actual address for this business so didn't move it myself.