Hi, looks like this might be a duplicate of the Motorola node just north of it. However, I don't want to rule out another agency placing a flock camera here. Do you recall having seen two cameras? Thanks for keeping an eye out and mapping these!

I'm assuming the bounding box is just because of the frontrunner relations... please don't hesitate to revert if necessary.

Relations were copied over to multipolygon. Hoping I got everything right. The dimensions for the inside of the relation represent the paths down the stairs and the ramp. The rough size is based off photos I took while surveying. Further work to improve underground detail is needed.

Hi Ray, looks like this and the other two cameras you added are likely test nodes and aren't physically present? Could you confirm and delete them? Thanks for keeping an eye out for ALPRs!

This might be an accidental remap of the camera on 300 West? There doesn't seem to be a camera here.

Walley, this camera is not present on relatively recent streetview imagery. 300 North is also a city owned road, so I would not expect to see a UDOT motorola on it. Can you confirm this was surveyed and is not just a test?

Any clarification on this and your other deletions? It seems unlikely that this camera would have been removed within two weeks of being added to the map.

Thanks for fixing this. Sometimes it's hard to catch the few random buildings that had differently formatted addresses before.

They're pretty recognizable once you've seen a few. Almost always powered by a small solar panel and the cameras themselves are black and a somewhat unique rounded shape. My understanding is that SLC does not use ALPR cameras, so these are owned by UDOT.

Not sure what happened here but there is no bus platform. The adjacent apartment was under construction last year through early this year which might've prevented construction. The city may build this platform later.

🌳🌲🌴treeees🌳🌲🌴

Second guessing myself on there being bollards. If this needs to be reverted I think the East segment should at least be marked as not oneway, that might solve the routing issue too.

Hi jacoblyman, it appears this node may not be a persistent physical feature, meaning it may not be appropriate for OSM. If the aim is to simplify navigation for customers, perhaps we can identify a nearby physical feature to use?

I recorded video going both directions along West Temple and referenced that for the changes. The project docs are only included for clarity.