Hi Dogman15, next time would you please consider splitting up your changeset into either geographical area or change type? It makes it much easier for others to review your work. Regardless, thanks for your contributions!

Hi, did you notice that some of the roads you removed name=* from also had name:prefix and name:full? For example way/503285561

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for your contribution!

Did you mean "Centennial Trail"?

Thanks!

Wow, interesting. Is there really a flagpole up here? Also, might name= be more appropriate rather than operator=? Not really sure here - I'm not too familiar with this ridgeline

Hi, thanks for your contributions here! In the future, would you consider transferring access=* tags from the old outer way to the new individual courts as well? I'll do that on these ones, so no need to do anything right now.

Wow, great info! Thanks for your contributions here!

Hi! I think this address format was actually OK as-is before. The convention here in Utah is housenumber containing just the number (412 in this case), then street containing the full name of the street. (North 200 East). This way has come to make sense to me, but let me know if you disagree - I'm always open to discussing challenging the status quo.

Hi, the western building here was demolished quite a while ago, and this area is now all grass. Would you be open to reverting these changesets?

Wow, thanks! I didn't even notice!

Sorry, Fairview Canyon I meant.

Good info!

Hi, I've been reviewing some of your edits, and everything looks awesome! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Regarding "Removed unnecessary borders" - If I recall correctly, this WMA area was imported verbatim from the official source. That small exclusion you removed, as far as I know, is legitimate. Do you have any more info on this? Perhaps the actual boundary has indeed changed?

Hey a heads up that the surface=fine_gravel vs surface=gravel situation is a little bit sticky in OSM. My understanding is that originally gravel meant more like fist-sized and larger stones, (not the way we Americans use that word) and fine_gravel is more what we typically mean when we say gravel.

But, lots of people have been using gravel to mean any type of crushed-stone surface, so it's up in the air. Just wanted to let you know that possibly fine_gravel is a less ambiguous option for surface tags. Thanks for all your contributions!

Hi, and thanks for your contributions. Another user Ezra Jenks has pointed out that some or all of these trails are still frequently (possibly illegally?) used by the public. However your private access tags remain in place. changeset/168677183
I assume you represent the property owner - If you still allow public use despite this being private property, we also have the "permissive" access value to show that.
Also, thanks for not simply deleting these trails. Perhaps you are already aware, but there are myriad benefits to marking with appropriate access tags instead of deleting. osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Let me know here if you have any questions or further input.

You may consider using the access=permissive tag to designate this situation. But as the local it's up to you.

Nice! Thanks!

For this sled hill, you may consider piste:name or loc_name. But as the local mapper you have final say I think. :)