The display on the OpenStreetMap website doesn't currently distinguish between paved and unpaved roads, but other users of the OSM data do. For example, the OsmAnd map software will overlay brown (dirt), light grey (gravel, generic unpaved), or light yellow (sand) dashes on a road to indicate the surface type.

Additionally, most routing software takes surface type into account when picking a route, preferring paved roads if it won't add too much travel time. Routing software is another reason not to call something a "track" just to get a brown line on the display: since tracks are frequently in bad condition, routing software tends to use them as the option of last resort to get somewhere.

I'm not seeing any of the usual signs of this being a track, such as the road wandering off into a field or forest, or a road that's just a couple of ruts worn into the ground from repeated use. In the aerial imagery, it looks more like a "minor/unclassified road", which is what I've re-tagged it as.

Please be more careful with your editing. You broke Lake Victoria by removing part of the coastline.

I'm not sure all of these were using "grade" to mean "tracktype". For example, an asphalt surface in excellent condition is hardly a "grade3" tracktype.

What sort of thing is a "Missoula Correctional Services"? Is it a jail? A courthouse? Something else entirely?

A name and address lets people search for something if they know the name, but adding tags to indicate what sort of thing it is helps people searching by type (eg. someone wanting to know how many prisons there are in Montana).

There's a thriving real-estate market for used missile silos (eg. http://www.missilebases.com/), so many if not all of these are in private hands. None of the ones you've added are in parts of the state where I can easily check ownership, though.

Are these former missile sites you're adding still in use as military land, or should they be tagged as "historic:military" plus their current civilian use?

What are you doing that involves scattering hundreds of unlabeled nodes across the world, and are you planning on cleaning up after yourself?

If it's Sears *Canada* that's dead, then why does this changeset delete a Sears store from Washington?

Please don't put descriptions into the names of things. It looks ugly to humans, and confuses computers no end.

Mind being a little less eager with the chainsaw? One of the two logging roads you deleted here was highly visible in the Esri "Clarity" imagery. (The other looked like it was only traversible on foot, if that.)

If you add the "toilets" tag to a restroom, it'll show up in searches for restrooms (a very useful thing). I've taken care of it for this instance, but it's something to keep in mind in the future.

You might also want to double-check the location. It looks to me like you've drawn the restrooms over part of the parking lot, though I'm not sure how old the aerial imagery I'm looking at is.

I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but you've effectively erased a bicycle path from the map. I've undone your changes, but please be more careful in the future.

Please don't make nonsensical changes like turning a road into a canal.

Is there a reason you deleted a bunch of logging roads and at least one driveway, rather than re-tagging them as tracks and service roads?

I'm not sure how you managed it, but you partially deleted a park in Austria in addition to your changes in the Tacoma area. I've fixed things, but please be more careful in the future.

Welcome to OSM!

In case you haven't noticed it, you can change the background imagery you see when mapping by clicking the "Background Settings" button (the one that looks a little like three stacked sheets of paper) and selecting an option from the list that appears. The "Esri World Imagery" option looks like it's the clearest in the area. Unfortunately, it also looks like it's the oldest, so you may need to switch back and forth between options depending on what you're mapping.

I got a chance to survey most of this today, and the north section is still very road-like: double-track bare dirt. Grass seed has been sprinkled on a few stretches, but there's been zero regrowth. Further south, there's been rehabilitation effort, but the damage will be visible for a few years yet.

Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contributions.

Something to keep an eye out for, though: two of the smaller buildings you mapped here are actually cars (I've deleted them). When you're mapping things that aren't clear from the aerial imagery, it's helpful to switch between multiple image sources, because some images are sharper, or newer, or better-aligned than others.

The trail you've added here appears to cut across somebody's field. Is it really a public access point?