(Whoops, double-entry of the same info; sorry).

What I suggest you do (as it is correct) is to restore the trail, adding access=private. THEN, when the trail actually IS "removed from the real world" (you say "soon," so it hasn't happened yet), it may be removed from OSM.

In my experience, though, a trail being removed in the real world means that it is cordoned off on both ends, allowing nature to reclaim the land. Depending on many factors, this usually takes many years, the trail slowly disappearing until it actually does. During this occurrence of nature reclaiming the trail, I would say it should remain in OSM (with access=private, of course and perhaps a trail_visibility tag that gets progressively worse) until it truly vanishes, THEN it can be removed from OSM. Any other process has a whiff of heavy-handed censorship of OSM, which I discourage: we map what is real, not what we wish to be.

What I suggest (as it is correct) is that you restore the trail, add tag access=private and when it actually IS "removed from the real world" (perhaps by being cordoned off on both ends) THEN remove it from OSM.

Although, in my experience, "trails being removed from the real world" means that they are cordoned off on both ends, then nature reclaims them, with this process often taking many years.

Both of your two sentences are confusing, rather than enlightening, to me. Let me elaborate:

1) You say "this is not public land," which I understand completely. However, "trails are not allowed" isn't something I've ever seen on public land — even wilderness has trails. Trails also exist on private land. So, exactly "who?" is "not allowing" trails? If this is private land, it would be the owner, and that's fine. Please explain.

2) You say "the FS will destroy this trail if they discover it on a map." Do you mean the FS will delete the trail from a map like OSM? Or will the FS delete the trail from the real world? I've never seen the FS removing trails of either sort and #1, removing map data isn't in the FS's mission, and #2, why would the FS have anything to say about this trail, as it is on private land?

So, you see, everything you say doesn't make sense (to me). It might make sense to you, so please better explain it as I am thoroughly confused by why the FS has anything to say about a trail on private land. Thank you for identifying that this is private land, that is new information to me. However, if this trail exists in the real world (as user:SikeMo asserted by entering it into OSM), the data should remain in OSM, but have an additional tag applied to it of access=private, that would be correct in the OSM spirit of tagging real-world objects with proper OSM tags that reflect their characteristics, including access.

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Are you sure this is non-existent. I've seen SikeMo add many absolutely real-world trails. Before deleting this, please contact user:SikeMo.

Thank you for making this fix. I tire of correcting Fluffy89502's bold assertions, too.

Please stop this madness! Adding natural=grassland like relation/11341032 is ridiculous!

Deleted.

I find the absolutely gigantic natural=heath represented by relation/11337591 to be ridiculously oversized: I estimate it at over 15000 square kilometers. Please remove this, or replace it with more accurate and much smaller polygons.

Truly, sweet, nice work here at building up the PTv2 efforts!

I appreciate, too, your education of me on this topic, as it was a fuzzy edge in my understanding of where PTv1 "becomes" PTv2 and now I better understand it. I recognize you are "monitoring" how the map is used and doing some extrapolation (more-or-less) of your observations which feed into "quality enough for routing," though I might caution you that while this might be true for some (robust, well-written) routers, it probably isn't for ALL routers. Especially those which expect "fully" complete PTv2 routes (which I still consider to be "contain all platforms" even though I recognize that "0+" technically makes them "PTv2 good enough."

We're teetering on an edge here, thank you for opening my eyes to this. I hope you can also appreciate my position that more platforms be added, something I have written MapRoulette tasks for and been working on in OSM for many years. Building platforms (my "Map Your Train Ride" initiative I started in 2016) can jump-start OSM community and technical development, and in fact, in many communities in the USA, has done exactly that.

Eventually, we'll get good platforms on PT routes, it can't happen enough for me. I believe we should do all we can to encourage this data growth in OSM. Thanks again for your contributions to the map.

Back to PTv2 for all LACMTA lines both in map data and wiki. Thanks for the heads up, they do put erasers on the ends of pencils for a good reason!

OK, I have re-read our route=subway and route=light_rail wiki and concluded that "0+" platforms is sufficient for a PTv2 route.

I have fixed subway routes (Red and Purple) both in the map and wiki and am in the process of fixing light_rail similarly.

However, I believe we REALLY should strive to enter into OSM every single one of these platforms as soon as possible.

I might be entirely wrong, but I believe that a PTv2 route must include all platforms and that a route with only (or primarily) "stations only" (no or few platforms) isn't a FULLY FORMED PTv2 route. I don't know how else to properly characterize such a thing (which LACMTA light_rail routes are right now) other than PTv1 routes.

It may very well be that these are "PTv1 routes which are in the process of (under construction in OSM towards) becoming PTv2 routes. But I don't believe OSM should tag them with public_transport:version=2 until they are FULLY FORMED and COMPLETE PTv2 routes. And they are not (quite) these, yet.

It seems you disagree, but I wanted to (quickly) reply and at least we could better establish our positions in the Discussion. I welcome a reply here and hope both of us recognize we might need a wider forum to make a determination about these "PTv1.5" routes. (I'm making that up as a shorthand to describe this situation).

Thank you, I'll do that.

You are welcome. However, simply removing the network=ncn tag, while accurate, is not sufficient to correct the problem of the data being aggregated into OSM. This is not a superrroute, it is merely a collection of relations which have nothing to do with one another.

{Please delete the relation.

This is not an ncn. Please remove it after reading osm.wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks and discovering what ARE such routes. I don't think it is even a network=rcn or even an lcn, it is so widely scattered. It appears to be an almost random collection of routes with no connectivity.

Cool. Thanks!

That might have been me. Please excuse my eraser crumbs and thank you for sweeping up after me!

Yes (and I don't want to start an argument), metro townships do have fewer powers, but they are not cities, which is what 8 denotes in Utah. In fact, Wikipedia says "A metro township is a type of municipal government in Utah equivalent to a civil township." As OSM calls US civil townships 7, it seems slam-dunk easy to say that they get 7.