I don't care very much, but TR is common on trail signs, and we use FR on the forest roads.

This road #686208509, labeled FR 315.2 is shown as 315.1 on USGS topo, and is not on the MVUM? Were you there and verified that it is open? There is another road, just west of this one, which is labeled 315.2 on the mvum, and is open to MV

Nice work. However, I think the ref should include TR.

ref probly should be FR according to the wiki (osm.wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#National_Forest_Road_System) since I'm pretty sure it doesn't have the 'Distinctive Route Marker'. My comment was on 984873685 & others by mytrails92 which are not open to MV. You're right about the name, which is how I tagged it in 2020, but sometimes it doesn't really matter

Please don't add a road without consulting the relevant MVUM & adding the motor_vehicle=* . 984873685 should be =no. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/psicc/maps-pubs/?cid=stelprdb5177824

Hi, When you add tracks like this from imagery & usgs topo's, it would be very nice if you looked at the MVUM and added the motor_vehicle access tags also. Most, or all of these are closed to motor vehicles. thx

That's not a name for a campsite. Also don't need 4 at the same location.

No need to, I changed it. I'll try to get up there next summer and see what it's like.

I spoke w a usfs person & that road was fixed and opened (except closed for the winter as are many)

When were you there?

You marked this as closed. It's not closed on the MVUM. Is this a temporary closure?

I usually tag a 2 track as a track even if motor vehicles are prohibited. Also, access=no is not consistent with bike&foot=yes. Probably should be motor_vehicle=no, & delete the access tag
From the wiki:
highway=path is used for paths that typically are too narrow for use by four wheeled vehicles

I think the right way to tag this is with demolished: prefix
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

In the future, plz confine your changesets to a smaller area. this one goes from the california to TX

What is your source for naming this feature? It doesn't show up as that on local maps, or usgs topo maps.

thx :)

I meant to say it does look unpaved, not asphalt

way/484582755 does not looks unpaved, not asphalt, can you plz verify?

:)

Agree with MxxCon. changeset is too big, and comment is vague.