"Managed forest" is not an appropriate tag for isolated urban trees. It would be better to just tag the individual trees as nodes. Please see the Wiki for guidance on forest tagging: osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest

Fair enough. Thank you!

What's the status of the school of medicine demo / construction? Is demolition / construction already ongoing?

Hi,
Thanks for editing OSM!
In this changeset, you added parking areas based on older imagery (Bing). In most cases, the Esri World imagery is more recent in the Salt Lake City area. Please always check

Your edits overlaid on the older Bing imagery:


The newer Esri World imagery showing a new apartment building:


Thanks! If you're local to Salt Lake City, perhaps you would like to join our OSM Meetup sometime? We would love to have you. See https://www.meetup.com/openstreetmap-utah/ for the next one. Happy Mapping!

Hello,

I deleted your contribution as it does not add anything useful to the map. If you are new to OSM, please take some time to learn the basics of mapping by going to osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide

Thank you.

oops! thanks, I fixed it now.

That was careless of me. I re-drew the roads and did some other refinement in osm.org/changeset/145424304#map=15/32.8301/-108.0831

good point, I changed it back in osm.org/changeset/143982486

I agree that it is generally in very good shape and thank you for being a great steward of our shared OSM data!

I don't think 2100 S should be primary, I agree it's an important E-W corridor but it just doesn't have the significance or road layout a primary should have in my opinion. Also, it's not a state maintained road—of course this is not the primary criterion but I do see it as a supporting reason. For example 700 E north of 400 S is also not state maintained but I would not consider downgrading it for that reason alone.

Regarding 300 W / Beck Street - do you think it should be secondary rather than primary? I think I could live with that, the traffic volume is not that high in spite of its generous layout. It's still US-89 but its heyday is long behind us.

Related, I can't really decide where to have the cutoff between primary and secondary on the northern end of Redwood Rd, right now it's 700 N but I don't know where else would be better cutoff point.

Finally, are you keeping an eye on Bangerter? There's still a lot of upgrading going on but I have a feeling people keep changing parts of it from trunk to primary to motorway.. I haven't been paying attention since I'm not in that area very often, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Looking at it right now, I see it's motorway all the way up to 47th South. At least it's consistent, in the past it has been a patchwork of different classes.

Thanks for the discussion, enjoying it.

I mean keep it as secondary :)

Thanks for giving this some thought. I'm fine keeping it as tertiary, you're making good points. I am waiting to see what happens with the northernmost section of 500E.

Reconstruction of 200 S between 7th and State is almost done, reducing the road to two travel lanes, two dedicated bus lanes, and two bike lanes. I think it's currently a tertiary and I am inclined to keep it that way in spite of the reduced # of travel lanes—and probably a lower speed limit, although that hasn't been posted yet. It's still "more" than an unclassified I would say. Thoughts?

Hey Kepler, how's it going? Do you have time to see if this flag is the old or the new design? And keep an eye on it if / when it updates?

I added them all by hand in individual changesets based on official UTA data and aerials / survey.

The names are the official names that UTA lists for the stops in their data. Since the names are rendered on most maps, I figured it'd be nicer to keep them that way. The wiki[1] doesn't say anything about expanding abbreviations, but if you feel strongly about it let's discuss.

[1] osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Basic_tags

Hi Krako73
Technically the Bonneville Salt Flats are part of the West Desert (Great Salt Lake Desert). They could either be independent features or they could be some kind of relation, though I don't know what that would look like.
Best regards,
Martijn / mvexel

(sorry I may have asked you that before.. your username certainly is familiar..)

Thanks for your comments and insights! Please correct my edits where you know them to be wrong. I was going off of the most recent aerial imagery I could find, but sometimes that does not show the level of detail needed to make these calls of disused vs active vs abandoned. I probably should have been a bit more cautious.

I agree with your interpretation of abandoned vs disused.

If you're local, come to the SLC Mappers meetup sometime! Keep an eye on osmcal.org for the next meetup.

I'll delete it because I don't know where it should be. So I'll leave it up to you to add it again in the correct place. Enjoy your vacation!

Hello! Did you mean to create this cafe on the south pole?

Ah, in that case it's probably best to create two or more separate nodes inside of the building and add the addresses for all apartments on those separate nodes. This is not a hard and fast rule though. Alternative approaches listed here: osm.wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers

Thanks for the updates! I noticed that you added address information on the building polygon as well as one of the points in the polygon as well, this is not needed. Let me know if you have any questions!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132279302