The majority of this user's edits are in Mexico, and I'm not really in a position to comment on those. Aside from this changeset, the small handful of changesets in the US appear to be valid and worth keeping (77343540, 77343026, 76467611)

Hello again,
I noticed you have bumped many roads up to primary in CA based on them being in the NHS. NHS status does not necessarily correspond with the OSM definition for primary, especially MAP-21 roads which are generally secondary. See: osm.wiki/United_States_roads_tagging, specifically:
"A few major urban arterials also may merit highway=primary if and only if they provide a clearly better routing"

Why was this added? This project was abandoned last year: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/11/28/710-freeway-extension-alhambra-south-pasadena/

Exit signage doesn't make a road a freeway. I'm just skeptical that a road with bike lanes, sidewalks, a relatively low speed limit, and multiple at-grade RIROs (not to be pedantic, but there are three) is properly classified as a motorway, and judging by the way history I'm not the only one either.

Do the multiple RIRO intersections along this highway not preclude it from being a motorway? Motorways should be fully access controlled and grade separated by my understanding. Wikipedia also lists this road as being a RIRO expressway, not a freeway.

Hello SikeMo,

Please leave the 'access=private' tag on these trails - per Sierra Pacific Industries access policy (https://www.spi-ind.com/OurForests/RecreationAccess), "vehicular use (including mountain bikes) is limited to existing roads" and "We do not allow target shooting, trail building, off-road vehicle use, overnight camping or any fires on our property."

Thanks, Bradley

Hi NorCalRoads,
Many of these roads bumped up to 'tertiary' in this changeset should be tagged as 'unclassified' - please see highway=unclassified. In general, in the US, rural 'tertiary' roads should connect smaller, distinct settlements and are nearly always paved (an exception might by FH 7 through Mendocino NF, currently incorrectly tagged as secondary). While I understand many of these roads are the through roads in these rural areas, these *are* extremely rural areas, and many of these roads serve a very small number of people (single to double digits) in the greater context of the US road network and don't connect distinct settlements; thus 'unclassified' is sufficiently high to describe them. If you are trying to "see" them better on the rendered map, please osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer, and consider that many of the ways in these regions have never been touched since the intial TIGER import and are usually classified incorrectly as 'residential' roads rather than 'track's. The hard work of cleaning up nearby TIGER roads and adding landuse makes these minor roads show up more distinctly.

Hello,
The at-grade intersection with Hilldale Ave. rules this section out from being a motorway. Trunk roads may have freeway-grade interchanges, but motorways may not have at-grade intersections. I will be rolling this change back.

Another problem - why was all the information on the Watson Peak rd. removed? (smoothness, surface, tracktype) Please do not remove relevant information from ways! I hope this wasn't the only way that lost information in these changes.

I also noticed that many former paths have been changed to track on trails that are either not wide enough, or whose trail bed is no longer able to accommodate a four-wheeled vehicle, which is the definition of a 'track' as opposed to a 'path'. What was here prior to these edits was correct with respect to what's on the ground.

Why was the Dollar Creek SUP changed to highway=pedestrian? This tag is not correct, please see:highway=pedestrian, specifically the first line stating A highway=pedestrian is a *road*" which this is not.

Reverting for reasons explained on previous edits - direct access to properties means this is not a motorway.

Similar to US 101 discussed in other changeset - this is not a freeway until closer to Cummings Skyway due to direct access to adjacent properties, which is not permitted on a freeway. Again, do not add link roads unless they exist physically separated from the main highway. Turn lanes that are not physically separated from the main travel lanes are _not_ link roads.

Hi Fluffy,
This section of road does not meet motorway standards for the following reasons:

- Direct access to multiple adjacent properties south of the interchange with San Juan Road, as well as south of CA 156 interchange.

- RIRO with public roads (Dunbarton Rd, Mallory Canyon Rd., Beatrice Dr, Victoria Ln, Tustin Rd, etc etc) - ****Please DO NOT add one-way motorway link roads where they do not physically exist!*****

Motorways by definition are fully access controlled highways (i.e., access ONLY by interchanges and grade separated ramps); this is very clearly not. As such I will be reverting this changeset.

Please also note that "Freeway Entrance" signs are not always sufficient to define a motorway - US 101 has the same freeway entrance signs at access ramps through Redwood National Park, but the highway is undivided through there which categorically rules it out as a motorway. I'm not sure where you're reading this "resembles freeway clause", but in the U.S. motorway strictly means divided, fully access controlled (access via grade-separated ramps or interchange) highways only.

Just a heads up...the "or a major intercity highway" trunk definition is fairly contentious and not commonly used. Many years ago I bumped the same handful of roads up to trunk that you recently did (101, 395, CA 70/99...) but have slowly been reverting them due to the fact that overall US consensus is that trunk should be reserved only for expressway-grade roads, in the same way that motorway is reserved for only freeway-grade roads. The majority of the US uses this definition, as well as most developed countries in OSM barring Canada and the UK as notable exceptions.

This went to debate on the talk-us mailing list sometime last year (sign up if you haven't!), and like many times before it reached an impasse between those arguing that it should be used only for expressways, and those arguing that it should be used to denote major cross-country highways (myself included, especially since CA has such a loose definition of expressway that it almost becomes meaningless to use for identifying road class) - only the debate got so out of hand it had to be shut down by the moderators. I'll leave these changes alone, but fair warning that you'll get a lot of push-back over bumping up non-expressway primary roads to trunk from the OSM community.

Again, has construction begun on this section? If not, it should not be tagged as "highway=construction" and instead as "highway=proposed".

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

You've upgraded non-expressway portions of CA 99 & CA 70 to trunk, but have left primary sections arbitrarily where the road is 35 mph. Why? If you're upgrading these on the "major highway that a motorway doesn't service" definition, then it should carry trunk through the towns (this has a contentious background - I personally think trunk would be better used in the US as "major intercity highway" rather than "expressway", but observing the map across the country the consensus appears to be that trunk is used for "expressway" so it's the way I try to tag now. Last time this debate was had on the us-talk mailing list it got out of hand and eventually shut down...). Guidelines suggest 40 mph, but this is not a hard rule, and is more applicable for urban expressways, since rural expressways tend to be 55 mph in California. Otherwise, these stretches should remain primary.

Have you verified on the ground or with recent satellite imagery that construction has started?

Why were these sections of US 101 changed to motorway? This stretch has countless grade-level intersections (Pesante, Reese, Berta Canyon/Prunedale, etc) that disqualifies is from being a motorway. Please review tagging guidelines!

osm.wiki/United_States_roads_tagging

highway=motorway

"Grade-separated highway, normally divided with 2 or more lanes in each direction. Access by ramps only."

Has ground broken to construct this roadway? If so, is there a project site or listing that provides more details? The bit of legislation posted in the note is not sufficient to add this to OSM.