Hi, I notice you are adding directional prefixes to roads. We are currently working on a proposal for naming conventions for Utah grid streets that sticks more closely to what's on the actual road signs, following OSM's on-the-ground rule. See osm.wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions. Would you care to share your ideas and contribute to the discussion? Thanks.

Hi, welcome to OSM! Because there was already an area for Brookfield Park, there is generally no need to add a separate node for it. You can instead add the information to the existing area outline (way). Let me know if you have any questions.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting you edit more overall (although that would be great of course!) but just suggesting you hit 'upload' more frequently while you're editing, so your changesets don't become so big as this one. That makes it easier for others to see what has been edited in a specific session.

Do you have information that the proposed highway that was here before is not in fact proposed?

Hi, thanks for your edits. May I ask upload your changes more often? That makes it easier for other mappers to see what you changed, and to have discussions about specific changes. Thank you!

Yes we have to keep an eye on this, and this user. I haven't driven on the western part of the 201 recently but large parts of it I would classify as motorway. They did mark it as expressway=true but I am not sure if that is a tag that has wide enough adoption that it warrants further blurring the trunk / motorway distinction.

Hi, thanks for your response! Actually I already did, in a subsequent change, since the surrounding parts of Bangerter Hwy were already `motorway`. I was recently there and captured some Kartaview imagery: https://kartaview.org/details/3471873/1773/track-info

If you mark a way as highway=construction, routing applications interpret that as impassable. I removed the highway=construction tagging and for now marked the ways as `trunk` but arguably they are motorway (freeway grade) there.

Alternatively you can leave it at unclassified and tag it restricted access using access=* tags. The road itself looks like it's "better than track". But open to interpretation & I don't know the area.

You're the one ringing in a new era, congrats.

Came here to look back at old milestones too :D

There's one node in here that has no name but has shop=supermarket and amenity=university.. was that a mistake?

The node is osm.org/node/1154257958

Interesting, I had no idea!

After discussing on Slack I came to the conclusion that this Challenge needs Local Knowledge in many places, so I am setting the flag to make it so. Here it is in case you want to work on it, but it won't show up in MapRoulette search any longer: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/14634

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing! It looks like you were hoping to add a private apartment. The tag `tourism=apartment` is for AirBnB and similar vacation rentals. It would be sufficient to add the building the apartment is in, and add the `building=apartments` tag to it. Unless the individual apartment has a publicly known name, it shouldn't have a name in OSM.
If you have any questions please feel free to ask!

Also, please try to keep your changesets smaller, so they are easier to audit for someone who is interested in reviewing your changes. Thanks. (Case in point, in this changeset you modified the center point for the state of Utah and I would be interested to know why, and the actual change you made.)

Hi, since this canal is (completely?) underground and hard if not impossible to verify with on-the-ground survey or aerials, I am not convinced it belongs in OSM. Do you feel strongly about having it? Any particular reason for adding it?

Hi, could you please keep your changesets limited to a smaller number of edits? That makes them easier to verify. Thank you.

Yes, that is a mistake. I apologize. I created a MapRoulette challenge to review all Burger King restaurants and I was testing it. I made a mistake of including the nodes of each Burger King building as Tasks. I will revert it, review the other test tasks I'd submitted, and refresh the challenge to correct it. Thanks for pointing it out!

Hi, please take care to connect existing sidewalks so that they don't cross service roads. Thanks!

Ganesh -- source=Digital Globe is too generic to be useful. The entire OSM community has access to DG / Maxar imagery. As Kevin said, it would be useful to define some metadata that indicates that this is newer / private imagery that the general community does not (yet) has access to. Lacking that, for now, can you add a changeset tag like "note":"imagery used is more recent than what's publicly available" or something like that?