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. :)

Howdy! Thanks so much for all the improvements you've made to CV's bus features!! Out of curiosity, do you work for connect transit? I saw a while back you updated the HQ buildings and stuff.
Regardless, thanks again and happy mapping.

Hi tcarlisle,
In the future, can you please write a more descriptive changeset comment? To keep data quality high, I and others review others' changesets. [0] Having a descriptive changeset with a summary, justification, or other info makes it much easier for the community to skim changes. There is a wiki article about good changeset comments. [1]
For example, for this changeset you might put something short like "Add fences, improve stream geometry, improve rail depot features".

[0] https://osmcha.org/?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22tcarlisle%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22tcarlisle%22%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%2C%22checked%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22Both%20Good%20or%20Bad%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22True%22%7D%5D%7D

[1] osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Honestly, I agree with you that east should be part of the housenumber, logically. But ultimately I think I agree with Martijn that house umber should be just that, a number. Anyway, Utah's grid system is really nice imo but it can really lead to some weird edge cases like this.

Thanks for looking out! Happy mapping!

Hi! Not because of doubt of your observation, but because I'm curious and want to find them myself, how did you identify this ALPR? In this case, does your specified source of local knowledge mean you noticed it visually on the pole?

Hi, thanks for going over these! Only potential issue I see is the addr:street tag - it's my understanding that they are generally understood to be concatenated with addr:housenumber, so having the directionals both on street ("East 1400 North") instead of just the second one makes sense.

Eg full address would be "555 East 1400 North" instead of "555 1400 North" if that makes sense.

Hi, have you seen the following wiki page? osm.wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions
Roads in Cache Valley generally follow that schema.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, (and because I review most changesets in my area), I looked over your changes. There are a few issues, but looks great overall! Here are some tips:
- Especially since these features aren't visible on the commonly-used satellite imagery, you should specify a source for your edits. Survey (seeing it in person) or local knowledge (from memory) are excellent sources!
- You have changed a sidewalk to a residential road along Factory Street. In this case, the existing (footway) sidewalk seems like the correct classification.
- In OSM, we generally avoid using abbreviations. So, this new street should be named "North 900 West" instead of "N 900 W".

I went ahead and fixed those issues. Let me know if you have any questions. And thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Thanks for your many recent contributions. StreetComplete is a great way to add lots of detail when out walking around. Let me know if you have any questions, and happy mapping!

That trailhead never knew what hit it.

Roger. Updated tags.

Is it open as of now?

Howdy! I agree with the removal of lift_tickets as it is not used (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lift_tickets#overview), but rental=no seems appropriate? Why move that to description?