Thanks for your first OSM edit, atracy!
I run the OpenStreetMap Utah group, we have regular meetups in the SLC area. --> https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Utah/

Thanks for your first OSM edit, CrowderSoup!
I run the OpenStreetMap Utah group, we have regular meetups in the SLC area. --> https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Utah/

Hi! I noticed that you modified relation osm.org/relation/8205350 in this changeset adding various from and to role ways that are not connected to the via way. As per OSM convention, a turn restriction relation should have exactly one from, one or more via, and one to role, and they should be connected to each other. See also https://ahorn.lima-city.de/tr/?zoom=15&lat=-32.51823&lon=115.73721&layer=Grayscale&overlays=TTT and osm.wiki/Relation:restriction#Members
Could you fix this, please? Let me know if you need assistance.

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55340582

Thanks for the updates. Great! Please make sure that areas do not overlap. In your case, the parking lot you added overlaps with some of the buildings. Not a huge deal but something to look out for in the future.

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55337189

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55316513

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55253621

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55243332

Hey there! Welcome to OSM :) In this case, you could have added the house numbers and street address information directly to the building itself instead of creating separate nodes (points) inside it. An exception to that rule would be if one building contained multiple addresses.

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55087145

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55093202

Hello!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55112155

Okay, for it to be permissible in OSM a few things need to happen, as described in the import guidelines. These are to protect the project and ensure best practices. Please see osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines as well as the Automated Edits CoC: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Perhaps a good way to start is to identify where this data can be obtained (public link) and what its license is?

Hey chadbunn -- are these buildings manually drawn or copied over from some third party dataset? If you're copying them from third party data, it may be considered an import. If so, let's collaborate. User osmjwh and I are working on an import proposal, here: osm.wiki/Utah/UtahBuildingsImport

We have a monthly meetup as well (I'm typing this from our monthly Mapping Night) -- stop by sometime if you like: https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Utah/

Best
Martijn (mvexel)

I added a section to the wiki talk page now: osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Destination_details#destination:street_multilingual

Ah, okay, I see. That aspect did not come up in the discussion. Since this seemed to be a pretty uncommon case (at the time I did not find more than a handful cases worldwide) I found it appropriate to discuss on the country list where we were editing (we being Telenav). As long as it is consistent either way is fine with me.

The fact that it was never discussed on the Talk page does not really resonate with me; destination:lang was not discussed there either. I do appreciate your argument for reducing ambiguity by inserting the lang: qualifier.

Hi mueschel -- in this changeset (and maybe others?) you modified some destination:street:fr/en to destination:street:lang:fr/en. I am curious about your reasoning? We discussed this in the talk-ca mailing list a little while ago (see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2017-October/008073.html and the
rest of that thread) and the consensus seemed to be that destination:street:fr/en was preferred. Do you mind if I changed it back to what the community seems to prefer? Thanks, Martijn (mvexel)

Hello apcroads,
You seem to have been copying roads from some other data source into OSM, and your changesets do not indicate the source or the process followed. This is in violation of the OpenStreetMap import guidelines. I assume you meant to contribute to OSM in a positive way, but undocumented imports from undisclosed sources can seriously harm the project. Please get in touch to see how we can resolve this. Best, Martijn

Following the discussion on talk-us (ongoing) I decided to downgrade this road to `highway=primary` (it was trunk).

The main argument is that this highway, while clearly major, has many abutters and related parking and driveways entrances. It also has a bike lane for some segments. Secondary argument is that it does not serves a major connecting function in the road network. Happy to discuss!