Hi Ctown1875, I'm thinking that a mountain peak named "Mike butt rock area" is not a real feature that belongs in OSM. Please have a look at osm.wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability if you need more information on that.

Thanks for your work on the CVTD system! :)

Hi Pulchritude, can you double-check the placement of this ALPR feature? This seems like a strange location for something like that. Perhaps this is more of a temporary construction-related camera?

Hi PhilLowry, can you double check your reclassification of FR 168 from unclassified to path? My general rule of thumb is that singletrack is generally highway=path, while doubletrack or ways wide enough for a 4-wheeled vehicle typically should at least be =track, if not =unclassified (as this feature was.)
Let me know your thoughts, thanks! And thanks for your other contributions in the area!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. In this case, could a visitor from the public show up to your office here for services? Anyway, tagging looks good!

Howdy, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! In this changeset you switched sidewalk=separate to sidewalk:both=yes. While =yes is technically not incorrect, =separate indicates that the sidewalk lines are mapped as separate objects, which in this case is accurate. Let me know if that makes sense, and thanks for your contributions!

Excellent, thanks so much! Looks like this may just be misplaced on the map then. Your photo shows what looks like a DOT camera next to a paved road, but the spot you've chosen is next to a railroad and dirt track road. Can you double-check the location?

Sadly, no - can you use a hosting site such as imgur or postimg.cc? Alternatively, you could try and use a street-level imagery site such as Kartaview or Panoramax but they may require a bit mote hassle.

Seems questionable that there is an ALPR here. Do you have a photo or other info on this?

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I've reviewed your changes here. Heads up that in general, changing classification solely to influence specific routing software is frowned upon. But in this case, I agree with your reclassification as tertiary, based on road width and role in the road network. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I've reviewed your changes. Looks great.

Hi, your edit here might actually not be correct, but I'm not sure. Perhaps user Sytys, the local public transit guru, can chime in here? Yuliya, can you share more about what stuck out to you with the old tags that seemed incorrect?

Hi, the spigot you removed on USU campus does exist. Did you check on site for that one?

Hello - Just letting you know that another contributor has changed the tagging for this camera to a UDOT traffic camera. Perhaps you guys can work together to confirm its actual nature? It's my understanding that Flock ALPRs have a pretty distinct design.

Hi Josh. Thanks, as always, for your contributions in the area! Just making one more appeal for you to please write a changeset comment? Even a few words summarizing what you did is better than nothing.

Pulchritude, were you able to see it in person? That would be great info if so.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I was surprised to see a speed camera placed in a location like this, so I looked at the Panoramax image you linked. I'm not seeing a camera in that photo. Is this perhaps a test edit for your setup?

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for your contribution.

Also, please leave a meaningful changeset comment. This helps others review your changes. The commonly cited community guidelines are here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments but honestly if you can just put something, anything, that is better than your current pattern. Thanks.

Hi Josh. Any source on your ford addition here? From memory, I'm thinking the bridge actually belongs just north of the trail junction, meaning there is no ford. I've walked this section a few times and don't recall having to wade across the river.