With regards to way/1112774432, that's a bad assumption. All the other bridges have gone, if there ever were any, so why would this survive? It's marked as a track road, a type that is often cheap and just fords things. It was built in a time when they would just drop fill on things. If it washed out, they'd do it again. It was closed as a road over 50 years ago. Which brings to the question in the fixme: delete it? No, because people might not want to use the USGS map with it on it? The thing is, these are fundamentally not track roads. They are abandoned in a temperate rain forest, overgrown, many have been actively removed. The land manager doesn't want people on this one in particular as the area is closed to access. Some of the ones that are officially trail are hard to travel. Leaving it is preserving history over ground truth.

You can see that the scary bridge over 44 Creek is no more from satellite imagery?

Having dogs under strict voice control when off leash is a legal requirement in Humboldt County and many other places. You can find a description in this brochure by the folks who manage the land just south of this change set: https://www.friendsofthedunes.org/_files/ugd/a9c01c_7fdb2e1230304bad8a467d86d5b195d1.pdf

I realize that iD makes an apparent big deal of these crossings and makes adding bridges, culverts, and fords easy and gives you a nice pat on the back for doing it. It makes the same big deal if it is a river or a seasonal stream crossing. However, if it becomes important to how, it is vital that it is correct. That's why there's the equally valid forth option to ignore this issue.

It's an "issue" not an "error". Mapping is an iterative process. We both agree there's a road there? We wouldn't want to leave it off just because we don't know how it crosses the streams? (Streams that aren't always there, I have found on surveys of similar roads.)

I have just produced another "issue" by adding a ford to a "Road 311" south of here even though there is no water crossing shown. If you would like to repair it, I'm sure the map would be greatly improved with the addition of the Black Butte River that road happens to cross.

Are there bridges there? Usually there would be culverts or fords. There are very few bridges on these track roads. I personally will only draw a culvert or bridge if I know it is there.

There's a load of tourism=camp_site beside Cave Lake. You probably meant tourism=camp_pitch since each one is not a complete campground in and of itself. I would just change it, except the area is a picnic area. Should they be picnic tables?

For Carter Meadows Trail, was this actually from FS topo or data download from their clearinghouse? There's currently a line from Strava that avoids the private property to the west, so it looks like it might have been rerouted.

s/Knoll/Knob/

Re: TJ Corral. Looks like you tagged the corral itself as man_made=corral but looks like the correct tag would be tourism=trail_riding_station. The description is very apt for this type of corral.

Why? Particularly along the part of the trail that includes bridges too narrow for anything but an (illegal) motorcycle and with trees across the railing and devolves into a bear tunnel near the creek?

Picked some slightly different tagging and reinstated it, including a note with the description on the "to Emerald Ridge Trail" sign in the Tall Trees area.

Was there a reason beyond not appearing on the very old USGS for deleting this trail?

You're quite right, I should have done that. Even if the MVUM might be changed next year, that's no reason to not have the best information at the time of editing.

There's a bit of a catch 22 for the MVUM having errors.

Unless you meant "MTB", in which case they don't seem to make it quite so easy to know. Ask the district office?

You already have your answer since the MVUM literally the legal document that allows motor vehicle use. If it's not there, it's not legal. This one has a locked gate to enforce the closure, but there's enough room for a little parking.

These were switchback cuts of the sort that result in no tread at the upper section and either a pile of dirt or no trail at the bottom. Sometimes the fact that people will ruin million dollar trail so that they can cut 10 feet off their journey while out for exercise really bugs me. Others were squiggly little lines diverging from the main trail by a few feet and for not very far. Most would take these as part of the already marked but overused trail. There were plenty small diversions like them not marked. One was along the main trail and after moving the trail, I'm not transferring over the little nonsense.

Everything that constitutes a unique route is still there.

I have never seen TR as part of a ref in an official way and it doesn't add any information. These types of prefixes are used to distinguish roads from different agencies. There's nothing to distinguish here and "TR" wouldn't do it anyway.

Oh, the IAT is a thing. There's a Wikipedia entry and everything. There's IAT stuff in Greenland, Iceland, and Europe too. Fellow I know who sort of did it started with the Florida Trail (Eastern Continental Trail) and had to skip Quebec for hunting season. Instead, did pieces in Newfoundland, I think. I might have a go at getting some of the California Coastal Trail in a relation. With the Oregon Coast Trail, it's a larger Coast Trail. I'm not sure if Washington and BC have gotten in on the action. Very incomplete.

Incidentally, one of your "alt-cdt" (going north from Dillon) was showing on my map at far zoom when it was rendering anything in a relation, but not at close zoom. I found it had been tagged "route=path" instead of "highway=path", which my software didn't know what to do with. (I use files from OpenAndroMaps rendered by c:geo or OruxMaps to have offline maps.) It also was really rough, so wouldn't have been any use at close zoom anyway.

I can assure you, the forest has not been working on that trail. In 3 days, I met only two people who were in the span of half an hour on this trail. One was a section hiker who didn't think the standard CDT was in his capabilities and the other was setting up for hunting season. I saw more moose.

Fixed a "fixme" on a trail created near Silverton the Forest Service topo calls Ptarmigan Loop. This trail was generally visible in photographs especially with hints from Strava heat map. I'll continue working on this route over Ptarmigan Pass and along South Fork to Bobtail (which is stuff I hiked, unlike this one). Just wanting to let you know that better trails may be possible now.

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly which edit this is referring to. I was sent a map with my backpacking permit that shows Redwood Creek Trail to extend between Tall Trees Grove and Emerald Ridge. I walked it and found it to be somewhat different from what is shown on that map, but the gist is the same since it is frequent fords between gravel bars and some trail beside trees. The exact fords and gravel bars will change yearly anyway.

USGS in this area is extremely old. This part of the trail is covered by two quads, one of which doesn't even know there's a National Park there. So, no, you don't see the trails the park has built on there either. I used personal research. My GPS track is public, but it includes excursions into the trees, so I also used my then recent memory of hiking the thing.

I did find the large number of logging roads that have been transferred from the 1960 era USGS map to be misleading when I hiked the horse trails on the west side of the creek. Some of them have been actively removed and others vanished quite cleanly on their own.