Adamant1 (2022-12-21 17:41:52+00:00): <I don't think that mapping the area as BLM has designated it gives the impression that the entire area is driveable.

Cool. I didn't say anything about drivability. What I did say is that most of it isn't owned or operated by the BLM when that's how you mapped it. What part of that are you not understanding? 

<I do think it's helpful to identify the area for recreation

Most of the area around the lake is usable for recreation. In this case though, a good portion of it isn't usable. For instance the 40 acres of Coram Ranch that you mapped as being part of BLM land and the OHV area when it isn't.

<that's clearly the land manager's intention.

Not to be rude, but Openstreetmap isn't a map of land ownership, that's not how you mapped it either, and I don't really care what BLMs intentions were. What I do care is if it's accurate or not and it clearly isn't. At least not how you mapped it. 

<it's up to BLM to determine which routes they manage and make available to the public and I'm certain they wouldn't be sending people onto private land if they didn't have the authority to do so.

As I've already made clear though and as you can easily tell if you look at the map I linked to it's not their land to send people through in the first place. Please look at the map I provided the link to instead of just speculating on BLMs intentions or authority. That's not how we map things. 100% though BLM can't "send" people on to private property that they don't own and that's completely out of their jurisdiction. 

<Do you disagree with the access conditions that BLM has published for the area? If so, why?

Which access conditions are you referring to? If it's the ones on the roads that aren't mapped yet and have nothing to do with this then you should know my answer. In the meantime we are talking about the area that you mapped and if it's correct or not. Not a random road that might or not be drivable by an OHV. I'm sure you get the difference. 

<since BLM's own maps of the area show BLM-authorized OHV roads and trails that extend outside of those parcels.

As far as I know from personal experience and looking over the maps multiple times before you even added the area, they aren't "BLM-authorized OHV roads and trails outside of the the parcels." Their just trails and roads that people can ride OHVs on. From what I remember some of those roads could be accessed by OHVs long before the OHV Area ever exited. You can pretty ride dirt bikes around most of the back roads in this area. For instance on the side of the river where Chamise Peak is. I was actually over there a few months ago riding around a four wheeler. People ride their dirt bikes around the rail road tracks all the time to. That doesn't mean any of it is "BLM-authorized" or whatever. 

I don't disagree with the access restrictions though. I'd be fine with them being added to the roads. I have a problem with them being represented by an arbitrarily and wrongly mapped area though. It's completely unnecessary. 

<What basis do you have to suggest that boundaries BLM has identified for this area are wrong?

The basis that I've already given you in the original message and this one. What part of any of that do you disagree with? I'm fine with the recreation ground being mapped at the staging area and around there, but the 40 acre private ranch clearly isn't a recreation ground. Same goes for most of the rest of it south of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest boundary. It's either that I'll I can just completely delete it. The important thing here is that people know what access restrictions the roads have. That has nothing to do with the boundary being there or not and I was already in the process of mapping them before you added the area. The area adds literally nothing useful to the map.