Great, I'm glad you agree that Redding and Eureka are regionally important cities. Specific clarification about importance and connectivity are described in osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance -- no Philosophy degree needed.

The only question really on the table is the specific routing through the city to connect CA-44 and CA-299. Since they directly intersect at Eureka and Market, the most obvious candidate would be for trunk routing to follow 299 until it hits 44 and then to continue on along 44 until it hits the motorway stretch. That would be consistent with the connectivity principle as well as the stated principle in the guideline which prefers minimizing route changes.

I would encourage you to read through the link above in detail as it really covers a lot of the questions you're posing here.

> In the meantime I can't even get a clear answer in this discussion about what roads should be tagged as trunk roads or why

It's spelled out in: osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Trunk roads are "the most important non-motorway roads that provide principal, long-haul connections between population centers of regional importance."

Plain and simple. The task thus is to determine which cities are of regional importance and to determine what the most important routes are between them. Those are the trunk roads, and that's the determination that's being made by each of the state-specific classification guides. Yes, there is some squishiness to which cities are "regionally important" but that's what we've been hashing out.

So the decision space is this: is city regionally important? If yes - make sure the most important roads between them are trunk or motorway. If no, they should not be connected by trunk roads.

With all due respect Adamant1, you don't get to dictate how the map is made just because you live nearby, and Bradley undid his changes because you bullied him into it. The way we classify highways in the US has evolved based on extensive discussions and is a collaboration of many, many, mappers working together to find common ground. The principles are well-established in osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance
I'm sorry you find it vague. Consider it an opportunity to improve the guidelines for California to make it less vague.

Right now there's a glaring gap in the trunk network where CA 299 abruptly changes classification at Buenaventura Blvd. That's not an acceptable situation and is at odds with the wide community acceptance of tagging highway classifications based on the connectivity importance of roads. CA-299 needs to either continue as trunk until it meets another trunk or motorway, or else get downgraded all the way back to Blue Lake.

OSM is a collaborative project. In no uncertain terms I say, nobody "owns" an area. We're all in this together.

This edit is broadly consistent with the principle of tagging the principal, long-haul routes between cities of regional importance as trunk, regardless of physical quality of the road. As the principal, long-haul route between Eureka and Redding, CA-299 clearly qualifies as a trunk road and is consistent with the consensus that has emerged in the US for classifying highways after months of national discussions on this topic.

It was there from the original import, looks like. I'd recommend deleting it.

They should be corrected also.

admin_centre roles are used for nodes that represent the capital or seat of something.

Did you really review over 100,000 buildings manually in a single day?

DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.

DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.

DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.

I agree with this changeset. It is broadly consistent with the emerging consensus in the US to tag trunk roads on the basis of importance and not physical characteristics. As the major, long-haul route between Albuquerque and Wichita, US-54 is a pretty obvious case for trunk based on the guidelines in:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Mappers in 26 states have drafted guidelines consistent with this guideline, and there's no reason that Oklahoma should be an outlier from the rest of the country.

Hi folks. It would be great if we could spend some time doing a real analysis of Texas roads and coming up with a scheme that everyone can agree with. It's really not useful to keep having these pointless edit wars.

Please see:
osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

This topic is pretty actively discussed on Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) channel #highway-classification

As far as I'm aware, the draft by Clorox is really the only work on classifications so far, and it doesn't go below trunk. So running around reclassifying roads without first deciding as a community how things should be tagged isn't really helpful. As far as I'm aware, there's no mapping between TxDOT functional class and OSM highway classification that anyone has discussed and agreed on.

See this example also of how park boundaries and land cover are layered:
osm.org/#map=17/47.56564/-122.65959

The tagging scheme is here:
osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands

See also: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

We do not add tags to "make the map look better", we enter valid geodata. natural=wood/landuse=forest is used on the actual areas that are tree-covered, not on boundary tags.

This is not correct. Wilderness areas are supposed to render as a boundary only. Land cover needs to be mapped as separate polygons.

Great catch! I just improved the river relation to follow USGS's definition. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwannee_River#/media/File:Suwanneerivermap.png) Thanks for reviewing.

Surfer's End is the local name given to the westernmost section of Second Beach. I'm open to other ways to tag this.