After all this time I need to create new paper maps of this area and I find that the outer ways of the natural=wood polygon (relation/3291187) are gone.

Was there a problem with that polygon?

For my immediate needs I guess I could render forest green based on the Los Padres boundary but I'd rather do it based on land cover.

Regarding ways way/414505825 and way/414505827

These look like the knock out the McGill and Chula Vista campgrounds as well as part of the Chula Vista parking area from the forest. As a volunteer on that mountain that does not seem right to me.

Yes, as near as I can tell both sets of changes were yours which is one reason I thought you'd be able to tell which one(s) were correct.

Actually I don't have more accurate locations: I noticed the issue because Osmose flagged the area. The Bing and Mapbox imagery show nothing there so I can't use that. If you have a map from the developer you have much more information than I. Could you take a look and see which of the duplicate addresses seem more accurate and remove the other?

So it would be alright to delete the duplicates?

Would I be correct in assuming the newer change set for each would have a more accurate position than the older change set? (Without current imagery, I can't tell remotely)

Thanks!

It looks like this change duplicated change set 31069549.

There are lots of seemingly duplicate addresses in this area and the satellite imagery is too old for me to see what the new construction looks like.

Are they really two each of a bunch of these new residential areas?

Most of the objects I have been changing were imported from about or before that time and the changes were to expand obvious abbreviations and assure that the address tags made some sense in relation to the nearby roads. I don't have local knowledge. If you can point me to the specific street and/or street house number affected, I will update. Or, better yet, please make the correction.