Thank you for reaching out, and apologies for the delayed response.

I completely agree on the importance of verification and careful tagging. I use multiple official public sources, such as the NFS, BLM, NPS, and local management, as well as global heatmaps, various imagery sources, and public GPX tracks. I rely on a combination of these sources rather than any one alone to ensure a comprehensive approach when updating trails.

We differ slightly on the idea that "if there's a visible trail, it belongs in OSM." Many visible trails are damaging shortcuts or closed paths, so I believe careful consideration is needed to promote sustainable trails. What we map in OSM often appears in services like AllTrails, and the public may use these trails regardless of their official status. Including informal or closed trails on the map can lead to resource damage, especially if they are unofficial or shortcut established routes. My goal is to make OSM useful while contributing to responsible trail stewardship.

In this changeset, I removed trails added by a mapper who has a tendency to include any path walked by humans. I've seen them re-map trails I've updated as closed or abandoned per local management guidelines. My intention isn’t to criticize, but to explain that they add many trails without fully considering the impact.

For trails like these, I generally use highway=abandoned and add a note to prevent reopening. I probably should have applied this more in this changeset. However, many trails—particularly on ridgelines—had no visible, walkable path according to multiple sources, so I chose to delete them instead of tagging them as abandoned or closed.

This reflects my process and methodology. I’d welcome your thoughts.

Also, thank you for all your hard work—I see the significant contributions you make throughout the state.