Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
The proper way would be to convert those trail colors into hiking route relations: osm.wiki/United_States/Long_distance_trails
If you don't plan on creating those relations, I would then ask you to leave the name tags intact and let other user do the conversion.
Thanks

I thought you would appreciate to know that the position and the shape of your
Troll House from 2012 was finally fixed. :D

All looks good.
Good job!

OSM keeps information about any existing verifiable feature and therefore we leave such data in the database. When a road or a path has restricted access, the proper way is to apply access=private tag that marks is as such and tells route planners to avoid those. OSM also renders them less visibly. Generally it is the task of the owner to properly label and explain to visitor where is permitted to go and enforce such rules. The duty of visitors are to follow such rules and not what navigation app tells them.
OSM didn't give any instructions to the person who introduced the data as this is provided independently by volunteers. There also don't seem to be proof that is was obtained by trespassing.
You can also think of it as that such information could be helpful during emergencies and wild fires.
I have also contacted DWG to make a contact with you.

Please do not delete exiting features. If the access to a path is restricted the appropriate way is to include tag access=private or access=no.

If you can please let other parks know that such changes are watched and will not be permitted.

Please do not delete exiting features. If the access to a path is restricted the appropriate way is to include tag access=private or access=no.

If you can please let other parks know that such changes are watched and will not be permitted.

OK. But now the road has no name.
The original name seems to be Deer Woods.

Hi again, can you provide evidence that those roads don't physically exist? They are clearly visible from satellite imagery and it seems unlikely that there would be roads abruptly ending in the middle of nowhere or not being connected to other roads.

As long as these paths physically exist they belong to the OSM data. I can see that unwanted paths create problems, but since you clearly marked them with signs that forbid access that seems like the situation is solved.
I have tagged the trails as access=private, which should discourage routing software to navigate through and also makes the rendering on the map different.

Sorry, but existing trails are valid data to keep in OSM database. For private property there is access=private

Can you specify what things were "listed incorrectly" and what does it mean?
All those roads still clearly show on satellite imagery.

I'd say this one is not a bridge :)
way/815704031

Perfect! Thanks for checking it for me.

Thanks for checking. Don't sweat it if you can't find it.

This is a bit time traveling, but do you remember, which park it is?

I assume that should indicate opposite direction to the general traffic, but I couldn't find any information.

I seems here they suggest to add 'cycleway:left:oneway=-1' as well.

cycleway=opposite_lane

Also, that path is definitely not called "(continues)"