no need to name these pois unless they have a name, can you remove the name?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138733489

why do you believe this road to be a secondary? you've upgraded it from unclassified, to tertiary, to secondary?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138166004

old proposed roads and fully destroyed roads don’t belong here, please remove them and add them to https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ (or some other site) instead
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138165711

this used to be an old trail that was still serviceable as a use trail.. has it been destroyed in recent times?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137616362

please use better statewide references before upgrading all of the road tags, Tioga Pass Road for example is secondary
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137213677

https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=12&lat=37.3207&lon=-119.1773 can also help highlight problems in the map

these are not link roads nor secondary, please read osm.wiki/Highway_link and highway=unclassified

trail updates around the GTW and eastern Sequoia, added bridge details, Volcano Falls and a few more buildings

if it's a name that would be used on an mailing address then `name` is fine... otherwise I'd use `loc_name` or maybe `alt_name` depending on how common it is. just something like `loc_name=The Four Lane` without quotes should be good. the road number is pulled from the `ref` tag so you don't need to add it again

when a creek runs under a road add a culvert to the creek instead of creating a bridge on the road. unless there really is a bridge.

there is no need to add the number of lanes to the road name. the lanes=4 tag already covers this. thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134635084

are the marked ford=yes nodes actually fords? the NHD flowlines around the Sierras are not super accurate, and most (say 95-99%) of the notable ones have culverts or bridges
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134434061

grocery stores need not be added to hiking routes, even if they are nearby. take a look at osm.wiki/Hiking#Roles for common hiking relation roles.

No worries, just saw these pop up in Osmose. can you take a look and connect or delete them? There may be others too: way/924857015 way/924857036 way/924857009 way/924857033
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132234287

this change deleted a lot of tracks and left some orphaned/disconnected. was this intentional?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132234287

I double checked in Secor and the UTM location can point to either one but the description makes it sound like the way you have it mapped is correct:

"The south side of the pass consists of slabs that lead to the northern base of Matthes Crest."

Secor describes Wilts Col as being directly between peak 7 and 8, where Echo Pass (currently) located. do you think Wilts Col and Echo Pass are one and the same?

should be fixed by changeset/129662865#map=15/37.8349/-119.8433

this broke the Yosemite Wilderness relation
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126157758

did you also modify the existing canyon?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128953724

minor nit but consider adding bridge=boardwalk for the boardwalk bridge=boardwalk
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126795363