okay @kai 1) I don't know if I appreciate the sanctimonious tone here, your comment(s) comes across a bit patronizing.
2)  yes sure they are not actually bridges. agreed that its the overly aggressive validation in iD. I'm not policing other peoples edits, and my intention is that for future editors (particular for novice editors) who might touch the road(s) don't unintentionally take the other stance when encountering the iD validation and select 'connect the features'. It's a philosophical question of true 'digital twin' representation in the OSM map vs. making the road network useful for consumers in real world applications such as Valhalla or mapbox. 
3) following that last point in 2), there's a tough conundrum between the two purposes of the roads here. You've got the Ocotillo Express Wind Farm and the BLM land. Based off direct communication with the Pattern Energy Site Manager, I was informed about the access restrictions for navigating to the turbines. there is no way to add turn restrictions on BLM 321 such that BLM consumers can navigate down to the SEE towards Davies Valley and the wind farm traffic only enter from BLM 163. yes you can mark up the roads as much as you want/add turn restrictions, but this again, most navigation software is not sophisticated enough to allow for conditional logic on the fact that different user personas can/cannot access these roads. if your destination coordinates is the turbine, you would use the other roads. if your destination coordinates are Davies Valley, you would not. obviously there are real world physical conditions such as gates/etc. that could/will condition access. 

Anyways, I'm not sure what you're prescribing other than just critiquing quality of edit here. open to direction, and can accept that some of my edits were sloppy (which I attempted to partially fix on subsequent edits),  but I am adamant that my edits were net net positive for OSM actual humans consuming OSM derivatives (the intended purpose of maps since time immemorial ) 

