Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks good, the only issue I see is that the road you added should be tagged highway=service, service=driveway. This tag combo is for private driveways that lead to one house.

highway=residential is for roads that give access to multiple houses, think the minor roads that meander through a neighborhood.

Anyway, thanks for your contribution, and welcome again! :)

Hi, thanks for your contribution. Since you requested a review, I looked over your changeset. Looks good!

Hi, and thanks for your contributions! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything here looks good to me.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, except that I'd say if the gallery still exists, it shouldn't be removed from OSM. In this case I might say either
1. Have both Main Street Bagels and Aspen Photo Gallery be node POIs (not merged with the building) and let the building be tagged minimally (perhaps just address etc.)
2. Let the gallery be a node POI sitting within the outer Main Street Bagels building way.
Perhaps a good question to decide would be - would you say the bagel shop takes up the whole building, and the gallery resides inside the bagel shop?

Anyway, thanks for your contributions!! Observations from local mappers are super valuable!

Hi, and welcome to OSM! A couple of tips:
- It's best to keep your changesets confined to related changes. In this case, I'd say one changeset for Logan and one for Provo.
- Overall your tags look good, but there was one church that got tagged location=Purple Driveway church. I'm guessing you meant to put loc_name the same way you did other nearby churches. I fixed that for you.

Thanks for your contributions and welcome!

I went ahead and switched those over.

Also, one more thing, you changed a helipad to an artwork installation. Was that intentional?

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks like there might be a couple issues here potentially:
- The oneway=yes tag seems incorrect, this looks like a road that allows travel in both directions.
- It seems like the turning circle used to be in place but has been removed when they extended Quail Crossing Blvd.
- I would say the cycleway should be mapped as a separate way. Typically the rule of thumb is physical separation - in this case it looks like some grass or non-paved surface between the road and cycle path.
- It's considered good practice to resolve crossing ways like rivers and roads. Usually this means adding a tunnel or bridge.

I went ahead and fixed that stuff. Feel free to comment here or message me if you disagree with any of my comments or have questions. Thanks for your contributions!!

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Since you requested a review, I went over your changes. Looks good to me, no complaints! Since it looks like you're adding a bunch of maxspeed tags, it might be helpful to add a source for your info. (Local knowledge or in-person survey is a valid source.)
Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. It seems like the previous mapper put the elevation in feet but you're correct that meters is the right way. Thanks for your contribution!

Thanks for all these improvements! Might I ask what you consider highway=residential vs highway=unclassified? I always figured they were the same "grade" - like meaning they are considered about the same level of importance and traffic, the only distinction being if there are houses along the road. Is that what you're thinking?

I mean, the same map of the whole network is posted at every stop. I didn't physically visit all the stops.

I ride a couple of the routes regularly so did those from memory. The rest IIRC I took a photo of the map placed at each stop and used that. I assumed since that's in public view it's OK for a source for OSM, but now that you bring it up I guess I'm not 100% sure?

Thanks for working on this!! I tried doing the USU shuttle routes a little while back and man, I don't know if I'm missing something but I really struggled. The relation stuff seems so fragile.

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OSM! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, thanks for your contributions!

Good catch!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great overall, one minor thing is that it's best to be as specific as possible - in this case that means saying surface=asphalt rather than surface=paved. (The latter could mean asphalt, concrete, etc.)

Thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes.

- The Description tag should be a concise description of the feature rather than a free-form ad space.
- Opening hours tag follows a specific syntax. It can be a little tricky but using this format makes it machine-readable, meaning apps and whatnot can parse it reliably.
- In your changeset description, you should say what modifications to OSM data you made.

I went ahead and fixed those issues. Thanks again.

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks good to me, as long as you have a good source. Thanks for your contribution!

Any reason to add piste ways directly on top of existing ways like roads? In my experience, it makes it way harder to improve the map when doing non-ski stuff. Why not put piste tags onto existing ways like roads and trails? Doing some research, it looks like overlapping ways is considered an error by multiple QA tools [1] [2] but I'm of course open to discussion on why it might be better for pistes. Let me know what you think!

[1] osm.wiki/Keep_Right/200_overlapping_ways
[2] osm.wiki/JOSM/Validator