It was appropriate to remove the portion of the trail that was on private land. However, marking the entire trail access=no prevents routers from considering the good portion of the trail even with the foot=yes. Since you know this area better than I do, could you correct the portion of the trail that isn't on private land?

I have adjust the preserve area since it included lands that it should not have.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95638232

These are likely logging roads and not highway=unclassified. Tagging them as unclassified might lead people to attempt to drive them in cars built for city roads. AI help find objects but it still requires us humans to make the determination if they belong in OSM.

Please revert this changeset.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95421158

Tip: The ref number isn't needed since it is on the trail relation. See relation/4807650
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95358006

It doesn't look like there are any bars or night clubs in the area. Can you please remove it? If you were adding a geological feature the wiki.openstreetmap.org can help you find the right tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95349388

Nicely drawn houses.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95278185

I afraid I don't understand what you mean by an illegal trail. Can you explain?

If the trail exists it can be on the map. If it is not open for public use then it should be tagged as Omnific suggested as access=no.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95311522

Tip: in OSM we spell street name out. The reason is that software has a hard time unabbreviating. Can you fix the Lakeshore Drive name?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95194190

Tip: square building by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95193626

Tip: remove the tag access=private. That should completely open up the driveway. It's kind of a redundant tag since driveways are by definition private. But removing it will allow routers to use it.

BTW - it looks like Amazon's employee may have added the driveway.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95178400

Tip: Connect the trail to the road to allow routers to use both. I went ahead and made the connection of the lower trail to Blanchard Hill Trail Road.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95125647

That's perfect. Thanks for the edits.

Tip: access=private means that people shouldn't driving on the road. If the road is posted as no trespassing then access=private is appropriate. Roads maintained by a apartment complex are privately maintain but people can drive down the road. Those If there is not street name, then I'd mark them as a service road. If you have any questions let me know.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95009078

That was a kind way of saying I removed SPAM ;)

Nice additions of sidewalks. Thanks
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94892966

Since these are two separately owned and not a park, the park area was removed.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94861533

Even if the features are private they can be in OSM. Just add the tag access=private. I'm going to add the features back.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94861533

Tip: Square buildings by selecting the outline, then just type a "q"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94803403

I originally added this park about 6 years ago. I'm reconsidering if it should be in OSM. This is just park property. What brought it to my attention is the dispute over the possible mining across Rockport Cascada Road. See https://www.skagitriveralliance.org/ and https://www.dnr.wa.gov/mineral-resources Surface Mining Reclamation Permit #70-013279 at the bottom of the page.

Do you thing we should include park property that isn't a formal park in OSM? The state has 71 of these areas. Not sure how many are in OSM.

Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94609849