Adamant1 (2019-05-12 00:38:01+00:00): The relation made up entirely of inner's will also be dealt with eventually. If it takes a few edits to deal with bad data because it relates to a bunch of other bad data, it doesn't mean said bad shouldn't be dealt with. 

In the mean time, if you want to contribute to the clean up effort, feel free to delete the remaining members, or if not, they will be deleted when I or someone else gets around to it 

"please find RIGHT data to replace it with. The source (at usda.gov) was properly tagged, remains an active link, and the shapefile.zip"

I'm aware of the usda.gov shape file. It's already been established that it's not the "more accurate" option. Especially considering that is what this was already based on. Otherwise I would have gone that route. So I'm good with that. As far as what's "more accurate" I'm not going to stipulate. Maybe ground mapping will be or something else. In the mean time, it's no reason to leave obviously bad data until it comes along. 

Btw, the area your saying is wrong due to "my assertion" was comprised of residential areas, some commercial places, a lot of none managed grassland's etc. There was also a discussion a little south of here that involved one of the original people who imported this data and it was decided that removing it since it's in accurate is better then keeping it. Said person who originally imported it removed a bunch of these areas south of here after reflecting on it 10 years later that it was probably better not to include the data anymore. That's not "my assertion." 

Finally, whatever "our employees of the USDA assert to be right", is different then what is good or accurate for OSM to have mapped. If people want accurate for the USDA forest landuse maps, they can go to their website for it. That's what it's there for. OSM's concern isn't to be a 100% recreation of government maps. As you should be aware from SomeoneElse's comment in changeset 69784624 "If people want zoning info they can go to the local authority for that."

P.S. if your not going to talk to me, don't talk to me. I said not to comment on my changeset's etc. So don't do it. I know what I'm doing, as has been born out in many instances now. So I don't need you interjecting in things. If I do make a mistake, someone else can bring it to my attention. Your the one that said "no contact" though. So please respect it and don't do it. 

If you think contact is necessary for some dire situation in the future, fine. Go back on your no contact thing at that point, but this isn't that situation or worth wasting the time on. As I said, the inner members will be dealt with in due time and more accurate data, probably not based on the USDA's since it's already been problematic, will be added at some point when it gets added. "managed forest" is a superficial distinction in these areas anyway. Even in cases where the import data was correct.I know because I hike/camp around here all the time. Not that it isn't worth re-adding by more accurate means then the USDA imports though. If those more accurate means ever come about. I'll probably record some tracks of the managed boundaries the next time I'm up there if I remember.

Outside of that, nothing more needs to be said about it IMHO.