Hello,
First and foremost, I am sorry about the trespass and vanadlism problems that you are experiencing on your property. I have driven around this area for the better part of a decade now and while I share your frustrations about the inability of some folks to respect posted closures (and otherwise respect common sense courtesies), I don't have a financial consequence for the misbehavior of others, and again I am sorry that you are dealing with these problems. With that being said, it is a foundational principal of OSM to map that which is "on the ground" - the data that I have added was done so using publicly available satellite imagery and was not acquired by any trespass. Here is one article addressing why private roads are not subject to removal from OSM simply because they are on private property: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property. If there are errors in the data please feel free to correct them, but they must correspond to the situation as it exists "on the ground". For example, the short stretch of Russell Valley Rd through the SE corner of the private inholding in this area was marked as private by an edit of yours, but in reality (at least approaching from the east) there are no 'No Trespassing' or equivalent signage - just "right to pass by permission" signage which, by my understanding (https://www.bullivant.com/right-to-pass-by-permission-sign-may/), prevents a future party from claming an adverse easement over the road rather than closing access completely to the public. As I understand it, this is a legal particularity unique to California, where this signage/legal precedent is designed to balance the desire to allow public access to undeveloped land while protecting the private landowner from legal troubles in future development (posting the signage prevents a future party from claiming an easement). Hopefully this is understandable and I am happy to discuss further.

Best,
Bradley