Yes, that's correct. The prefix was missing from these streets. Then you added a prefix to some of these streets ("Freedom Boulevard" -> "North Freedom Boulevard", "Center Street" -> "West Center Street") in the name=* tag, when that complete name actually belongs in name:full=*

Hi cas79, welcome to OSM and mapping in Utah! What is your source for the phone numbers you added here to the seminary and church building? Given that church buildings don't have phones in them anymore, I don't expect them to have a phone number that doesn't change.

HI Flap Slimy Outward, please note that according to local conventions documented at osm.wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions the directional prefixes that you added to many streets (the "South" in "South Freedom Boulevard") should be captured via the name:prefix=* and name:full=* tags, but not in name=* since it is not present on street signs.

Hi Kirk, can you explain your reasoning for why you downgraded all of these to driveways? To me these look like a mixture of some residential, some service, some driveway based on whether or not it has a name, and how many units each serves.

Hi MadCat, is the new development next to the school being named after the school directly, or did you mean to put the name on the school landuse instead?

Hello uranium2662, and welcome to OSM and mapping in Utah! We're happy to have you. Because of our slightly unusual street names here in Utah, we have a specific page on the wiki about it (osm.wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions). Specifically, because the "South" part of this address is not typically found on the building or street sign, we as a local community have agreed that it belongs on the street (in a special name:prefix=* and name:full=* set of tags). This also makes OSM consistent with the state GIS datasets and most local government GIS datasets. It would be great if you could change this back, or I'll take care of it soon if I don't hear back from you. Feel free to ask if you have any questions! We can always use more people contributing to the map.

Yes, I know what it looks like, I'm a local. I deleted them because they were drawn as if looking straight on at the entrance, when things should be mapped based on their footprint, and also because an underground entrance is not a building. Since you brought it up, I've now redrawn them with correct geometry and a correct tag in changeset/175035158 (the wiki page for cellar_entrance notes that it also includes vaults and caverns)

What structures are you referring to? The buildings that were mapped with arches that area actually just doors into the mountainside?

This is A LOT of different changes across the entire state. Please break up your changes by what the change is and/or into smaller geographical areas.

I see changes consisting of: moving name_1 to alt_name, moving numerical names from alt_name=* to name=*, moving highway numbers out of name=*, splitting a dual carriageway, adjusting lane numbers, moving name_1=* to name_2=*, and that's not even scrolling a quarter of the way down the list of changed ways. This is so many changes that I find it doubtful that you actually investigated how many of these name changes are actually correct (and I can't be bothered to scroll all the way down the list to see what else you changed, because it is so long).

I think it would also be a lot more helpful to the completeness of the map if instead of doing a piecemeal edit of (for example) just moving name_1=* to alt_name=*, to actually fully correct the naming scheme of the way, and, for example, not leave "Street" on the end of a numbered street or not leave a full street name in the name=* tag instead of moving it to the name:full=* tag.

Please also note that sometimes a highway number belongs in the name=* tag, as when they are signed with that for addressing, it is unreasonable to expect a parser to understate that an address with addr:street="North Highway 161" is supposed to match the way with ref="SR 161" (for one route example)

I don't think this is a correct use of mascot:iconography=*. While BYU does use a Y in branding and materials, they do also use an actual cougar, so mascot:iconography is not necessary.

Hi Mamcmi,

Why did you change the street running through the east village to a residential street named "University Village"? According to state data, the whole east village has the address 750 S Arapeen Dr, with only unit numbers making the difference between buildings, which leaves the roads inside the complex as unnamed.

I didn't say that you can't, I said that it's less detail to have it where the nodes intersect. Do you have a good reason for why less detail would be preferable?

Am I looking at this correctly that you moved the highway=traffic_signals node from the stop line to where the ways cross? Why would you remove detail like that?

Literally part of the quote that you omitted in your first [...] is "Prior to 1997, this connection was direct". Meaning that the connection is no longer direct, and you must first leave SR 201 to continue on it.

What error are you referring to? As a local, I can say that this highway legitimately has a number, and a nickname, but no actual signposted name.

Aside from the classification issues already discussed, this changeset is also incorrect for adding the ramps and small portion of 900 W to SR 201, as it is legally defined as discontinuous.

Hi calebstclair,

What is your source for this stretch of road not being called Main St? According to state data, this is the name in use here. The only street level imagery available is pretty low resolution from Bing, but I think the sign at 440 N does say Main St.

Ah, that makes this problematic, because it is illegal to use Google Maps as a source. However, I can also see that exit 279 is signed as SR 73 in Mapillary imagery. This doesn't contradict anything though, as Main St between 850 East and State St is still considered SR 73, which is where the interchange falls.

Regardless, I have performed the revert.

Hi calebstclair, the reason this portion wasn't tagged as part of SR 73 is because it was removed in 2011, as reported in this archived UDOT document: https://web.archive.org/web/20200531221739/https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=200609181054191. Please revert your changes, or let me know if you would be more comfortable if I did it for you.

Oops... Thanks for catching that!