could you try to add more descriptive comments to these changesets in the future? it helps a lot with reviews and saves us all time. thanks for the consideration and happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166490310

please take a look at osm.wiki/Hiking - hiking routes should be official trails (not use trails), and the relation members should use defined roles like "main" or "approach". I'm not sure what "path" and "way" mean. some relation validator will flag these. also make sure to keep the informal=yes tag, it looks like it was removed. this helps with many renderers and routers.

it also looks like the gps data was imported and could use some clean up. I find that a combination of LIDAR data (Yosemite has great coverage in 3DEP) and aggregated GPS tracks, like Strava, in combination with my own tracks helps quite a bit with determining the true path on the ground.

thanks for the contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166713957

I updated the operator tags

I updated it to the JMT Conservancy since it seems more accurate, but there is no single authority. originally the trail was sighted north to south, starting in Sequoia. more traditionally it is hiked starting in Yosemite. four different organizations can issue permits for travel along the JMT, five if you include the portion that overlaps with the PCT. but no permits are JMT specific - they set entry trailheads, with few exceptions on which trails can be hiked or where you can camp.

there is also the JMT Conservancy https://jmtwilderness.org/. aside from the portions of the PCT that coincide with the JMT I don’t know if the PCTA is the most specific organization in charge, if one is at all
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166544887

Hi, natural=wood is all that is needed to mark an area as a forested area. The name tag should only be used if the forest has a specific name - otherwise add additional detail to the description or note tags. Thanks for the contribution!

I noticed there are two fairly similar hiking routes - relation/9338492 and relation/15569997

should these be combined or are they distinct?

should the Mokelumn Coast to Crest Trail relation in here relation/12346593/ be combined with the existing one relation/4139386/ ?

underground pipelines should be tagged as such, they're not culverts

Please see tourism=trail_riding_station for some guidance on how to use this tag - it shouldn't go on trails or roads. Welcome to OSM!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163798763

by accident, I was looking for evidence of the old trail above the mine and saw this on satellite imagery. the building is outlined on the old USGS quads too, probably an easier place to start.

the milestone markers like node/3964747022 seem to be out of place. are they correctly located and still relevant?

what is the criteria being used? is there a proposal I can reference?

there are only 11 instances of this tag worldwide, why the change? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=camp#overview
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158276872

should this node be expanded to an area that includes the mine shaft? node/369167242
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158250142

I reverted this change in changeset/156021358

awesome, thank you!

does that imply that this is an official maintained park trail? when I have been on this it was a use trail (informal=yes)

should this be “Forces”? node/11189397550

no worries, thanks for the edits!