Hi truemarmalade, I'm not sure you're using access=yes correctly. Tagging sidewalks this way means that *any* mode of transport is allowed to use this sidewalk, including motor vehicles, which is not true. My first guess of your intention is that you mean to indicate that there is public access to these sidewalks for walking, which is already implied by highway=footway and therefore there is no need for an access tag. If there are signs indicating that bicyclists should also use the sidewalk, then you could add foot=yes and bicycle=yes, but I don't expect this to be the case.

Congrats on beating me to map this! I came to check as soon as I saw the headlines

Hi Joseph, what was your logic behind upgrading North Temple Frontage to tertiary? Looking at it on Bing Streetside, it looks like there's barely room for two semi trucks to pass at points. Compared to the roads around it, I expect that it gets very little traffic, and the majority of traffic is just using the 5600 W exit

Hi Lumikeiju, just for future reference next time you're editing in Utah, that E wasn't a unit, it was the street prefix. I've gone ahead and fixed this one already.

Hi Scott, this geometry looks like the kind of thing I would expect to be oneway. Do you purposely not tag it as such?

Hi astotes, nice work on the access tags. Since you already mentioned on the forum that this is a new trail, I'll trust your alignment until it appears on some imagery we have permission to use.

For that fence that's gone, I've corrected your tagging to indicate such. For future reference, you'll want to read up on the wiki page for Lifecycle prefixes: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

I sincerely apologize if I came across as rude - that was never my intention. I really appreciate the effort you’ve put into mapping your neighborhood so thoroughly, and I just want to ensure that the information remains as accurate as possible. Whenever I have questions about a change and the original mapper disagrees (as in this case), I make it a point to check with the community on Slack or Discord to ensure I’m not mistaken before proceeding. Several others also felt that this doesn’t quite look like a dog park.

Sorry, but that's not any better. What you've described is using Google Maps as a secondary source, and using Google as a source, even as a secondary source to check something, isn't OK. And seeing people playing with their dogs there one time doesn't make it a dog park. To count it as a dog park, I'd expect there to be some kind of signage, or a fence, or something for the dogs to play on (like on the one you've mapped nearby as Woodgate Dog park). I'm still not convinced that this isn't just a patch of grass

That is problematic for two reasons. The larger one being that OSM is not allowed to use Google Maps data (see osm.wiki/Google). The other being please do not put something on the map that you are not sure about. If there's something that you are thinking should go on the map but can't verify, make a note about it instead (see osm.wiki/Notes).

Hi Kuatsystems, are you this is a dog park? On Bing Streetside, it really looks like it's just some grass in the middle of a roundabout

If you would like it redacted, you can make a request to the Data Working Group (DWG) at [email protected] and they'll take care of it

Hi scottfunkel, welcome to OSM! Thanks for your edit. For future reference, when it's not an all-way stop, you can specify which directions stop by putting the highway=stop node on the line where drivers are expected to stop. I've already corrected this change for you. You can read more about tagging stop signs at highway=stop

Hi Deet64, are you aware that changeset comments are public information? Are you okay with this personal information being available?

Hi Lkumar, the reason the middle portion of this street was separated is because there are bollards preventing vehicles using this as a through road. At the very least, you have removed the detail that the middle portion is a different surface. You could maybe make the argument that it should be considered a pedestrian street instead of a sidewalk, but residential street is definitely incorrect. Can you please correct your change?

Hi Blatherskyt, are you aware that your changeset comments are public? Putting personal details as you have in this and other changesets comments isn't common because of that, so I wanted to check.

Please also note that descriptive names, like duplicating the address in the name field, is incorrect and unnecessary

Hi Blatherskyt, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and mapping in Utah! We're happy to have you.

I'm concerned about the changes you've made here, because "West 600 North Street" is not a typical street name in Utah. I would expect that the street sign actually says just "600 North"? For more information about how the local community has decided to handle Utah street names, check out osm.wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions

I also see in your other changes that you traced entire properties and labeled them as buildings. Please note that if you know an address for a building, but cannot draw the building itself, it's preferable to add a single node/point to assign the address to, until we get updated imagery that shows the building.

Hi fryguy09, I have some concerns about the tagging you've used here.

Firstly, admin_level=5 would indicate an administrative authority between a state and a county according to the wiki page for US admin levels (osm.wiki/United_States_admin_level), which doesn't match here. In fact, since based on the name it looks like this boundary has no administrative authority, or place-finding use, I'm not sure it belongs in OSM at all. If you're looking for a boundary that is just underneath a city, I think the city's community councils fit the bill, although I have yet to reach out for permission to use their maps for OSM.

Hello WaypointTransit, welcome to OpenStreetMap and to mapping in Utah! We're happy to have you. One minor note about the changes you've made here, though. By tagging `sidewalk:both=yes` on a split highway, you've incorrectly indicated that there's a sidewalk in the middle of the road. The correct combination of tags here would be `sidewalk:right=yes` and `sidewalk:left=no` for the portions that don't have the sidewalk mapped separately yet, and `sidewalk:right=separate` and `sidewalk:left=no` for the portions that do have the sidewalk mapped as a separate way.

Hi Iveta, please do not use TIGER as a source for road names in Utah, it is very inconsistent about how it handles them. For more information about our unusual road names and how the local community has settled on handling them check out osm.wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions

Hi Susan, are you sure addr:housenumber=2965b is correct for this house? That's a nonstandard house number for Utah, and state data shows this address as addr:housenumber=2965 + addr:unit=2