This looks good (and it appears you corrected your typo from changeset/72256121 -- thanks for doing that).

Just so you know, in cases of points of interest like Ute Water/Grand Valley Power using entire buildings, it is preferable to have the "point" of interest as the building, instead of just the point (or duplicating the information on a node inside the building).

Also, just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018".

Thank you for contributing, and I hope to see more edits from you in the future,
vorpalblade

Just so you know, the appropriate tagging for an "alley" is "highway=service" with "service=alley". iD should have a preset for that.

Also, you probably intended to connect it with Elm Avenue.

I've gone ahead and fixed both issues, but I hope this helps your mapping in the future,
Thanks for mapping,
vorpalblade77

Hello, when you say "Apartment" in you changeset comment, I thought you were adding one, not modifying one. While I highly doubt you were trying to correct the geometry, you probably were trying to add an address. A good changeset comment for that would be "I added an address to an apartment in Grand Junction". In this case, it looks like you accidentally messed up the building outline for the apartment. I hope you don't mind if I fix it.

Also, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018".

Thank you for contributing, and I hope to see more edits from you in the future,
vorpalblade77

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018".

Thank you for contributing, and I hope to see more edits from you in the future,
vorpalblade77

I do not see any major issues with this changeset.

That being said, I would like a better changeset comment than "GIS Data". In this case, it looks like you were modifying motorway exits and their links, so I would have expected a comment like "I modified motorway exits in Grand Junction" or something like that.

This helps other people look at your changeset and see possible accidents (for example, did you mean to edit the boundary for Clifton? You did in this changeset).

Also, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018".

Thank you for contributing, and I hope to see more edits from you in the future,
vorpalblade77

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018".

Thank you for contributing, and I hope to see more edits from you in the future,
vorpalblade77

This changeset generally looks good. About the only concern I have is that you changed the building=industrial tag on way/497002707 to building=yes. Is there a reason why? ( The original building shape and information was an import from Mesa County GIS )

Also, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018".

Thank you for contributing, and I hope to see more edits from you in the future,
vorpalblade77

I'll note that I said that he didn't have to add anything above addr:street. I didn't say he *shouldn't*. I just view it as a waste of time when (most) data consumers look at the surrounding boundaries.

In this case, looking at the administrative boundaries, he was probably right to add an "addr:city", although IIRC, I've seen some people use Fruitvale and Grand Junction interchangeably in addresses.

You do have a point on the postcode, but I'd rather go through the import process for the zip codes.

Part of the issue that I've had with having addr:postcodes and addr:city tags on addresses is that when boundaries change, it seems that no one bothers to update the interior addr tags. (I've seen this with street name changes as well, and I still have to fix that in Palisade, CO).

It *might* be an extra step for data consumers, but I would hope they would be taking that extra step anyway, if only to ensure they don't have an address with "addr:city=Palisade" in the middle of Grand Junction.

All that being said, I can see why you would leave addr:city and addr:postcode on every single address in an import. With an import, I'd leave as much information as possible.

This looks good.
Thanks!

I presume that the building has a plaque somewhere that says "WCCC Building B". If so, this edit looks good. If the building ref is "BB", then I would move that to "ref=BB".

This is generally good. You can make it look better by using the "square" tool (keyboard shortcut is "q", you can also right-click on the building outline and click on the "Square" tool.

Like I said in my other comment, you don't have to add anything above addr:street, since most software will "guess" it by using the surrounding boundaries.

Also, when drawing outlines, I would _highly_ recommend using either the "Mapbox Satellite" imagery or "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018" imagery (under "Background Settings" ("b" keyboard shortcut)).

You did the name/address/payment tags well. One caveat is that you don't have to add addr:city, addr:postcode, and addr:state (most navigation software looks at the administrative boundaries for those).

I don't know if "General Nutrition Center" is a supermarket (which you have tagged it as) or a healthcare location. If it is a supermarket, its fine.

You poorly formatted the opening_hours tag. You had the right general idea. I use http://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/ to avoid malformed opening hours. In this case, it should be "opening_hours=Mo-Fr 10:00-20:00; Sa 10:00-18:00; Su 11:00-17:00". Notice that Sat -> Sa and Sun -> Su, there is a separator (";") between the days (a "," may work as well, but for simple cases just use the semi-colon).

I hope this helps,
vorpalblade77

Just an FYI, OpenStreetMap is a public map. I'm mentioning this since you have put semi-private information on the map. You might think your garage is the "coolest place to play ping pong in the summer", but do you want other people to know that and randomly drop by? Or do you just want your friends to know that?

If you meant to do that, then great!
Otherwise, you might want to remove the "description" tag from you garage and house.

In any case, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Since you've asked for a review, here we go:
1) Harley Davidson could be tagged as a motorcycle dealership (pretty much the same thing you did for Bookcliff Gardens).
2) When outlining buildings/drawing in new roads, I _highly_ recommend using the county's aerial imagery (you can use that by clicking on the layers icon or pressing "b" on the keyboard and then selecting "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018" -- you'll only need the other imagery if you are mapping Mesa County outside of Grand Junction/Fruit/Palisade).
3) It looks like you realigned some roads based off of the Bing Aerial imagery -- again, I'd use the county's imagery, since it is more accurate, higher resolution, and newer.

I've left everything alone, so you can play around with it and see the difference.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and if you have any questions, send me a message!

*make it not a roundabout

This *may be* a bad edit since it is possible for it to have two-way traffic on some sections, which would make it a roundabout.

Please direct all comments about this changeset to @vorpalblade77-kaart

Are you certain that Ute and Pitkin Avenue are primary instead of trunk?

I can see how you might have decided to classify them as primary, since they have quite a few intersections, but then there are trunks starting semi-randomly.

Honestly, when I was reverting 57870860, I just kept the tags that were existed prior to that changeset and any tags that existed in that changeset that didn't conflict.

It looks like they can be removed, since they are the only existences of those tags.

Absent objections, I'm going to revert this change.

Problems with it:
1) The official names of the roads ARE NOT decimal. They are actually fractions. They may have the decimal as an alternative name, but not as the primary name.
2) Nominatim DOES NOT equate ½ with 1/2, which is what people would actually type.

Official street names can be found here:
https://emap.mesacounty.us/viewer/

Again, absent objections, I intend to revert this changeset by July 20, 2018, but probably sooner.