fixed

hey, i wouldn't put private on these paths, this preserve is open to the public

sorry, but in OSM we map what exists. if something has legal reasons precluding access, that can be tagged accordingly, but 2024 imagery shows that this road certainly connects through here.

a couple of these farmland areas were multipolygons with only a single outer ring. not sure how you managed that in iD, but be careful. a multipolygon can be valid for these kinds of features, but you'd expect there to be some kind of inner ring, like a hole punched out or something. since these were just simple areas, they should have been closed ways, not relations.

hey, don't forget a changeset comment!

heads up: it's "source:historic" for the tags on these nodes

For WB, I consider exit 113 as the point at which you exit the toll road. True, you can't get on that stretch without passing through a toll first, but when you drive it, it feels like you've left the tollway at that point.

Nice! Always good to see another local updating the map. I'm over in Plano, but I work for the County GIS department. We have some high quality aerials, so I am pretty sure that's a bike path. Our aerials are due to be updated in the next month or so, and I'll go back over this area once we get them in.

Hey there! Are you a local to this area? I noticed that part of that stream is actually a bike path. I'm working off the county's imagery from last fall, so I can't totally tell where all the culverts are going, but I don't think it's following that route, looks more like it's crossing west under Devoe.

what is the purpose of these relations? unincorporated areas are defined by inner rings of administrative boundaries, they don't need their own relations

you haven't answered the question.

by what measure is your classification system consistent?

so you're going to follow IDOT's classification, then? you've got a lot of US routes that need downgrading, then. lots of 34, 52, 6 are shown as minor arterials by IDOT.

or you're going to use street view?
compare
- US 34 east of orchard (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6831415,-88.3613472,3a,75y,273.26h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s46RDUd-Zi62Oy7mamQ3XWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
- IL 31 north of Oswego (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6905577,-88.3551076,3a,60y,11.39h,88.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqeLC1GolJYhGDE1v4kzmFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
- Orchard (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6926215,-88.3803817,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7_gAHd9LcqrgzDULQApeQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

by what measure should these three roads be classed the same? your classification is not consistent on physical characteristics, nor IDOT classification, nor us / state route status, nor local opinion.

because it literally is not the primary route between these locations. whether you want to go by usage or by physical characteristics, orchard road is the main route by which folks get north and south.

same goes for the stretch of US 34 you upgraded. east of Orchard to the river, it's a two lane road with hardly any shoulder, and only access to a handful of businesses and residential driveways; locals largely do not use it as a primary route, they use 71.

and lastly, and most importantly: there was actually local consensus on this. you drop out of nowhere to impose your statewide defaults, which you stated elsewhere could change based on local conditions, and i'm telling you there are local conditions that local mappers have agreed upon.

i'm trying to be understanding, but please revert this.

the classifications in this area is the result of discussion consensus among mappers who live and work in this area.

we don't need a blanket policy blindly applied to highways based on us / state routes.

there's a "highway-classification" channel on there where these kinds of discussions take place

not necessarily. you can't just apply a single policy to every road, you have to consider their context in the nearby highway network.

near Oswego, for instance, you have two state routes (IL 31 and IL 25) on opposite sides of the river. when you compare how they connect to other roads and their annual average daily traffic numbers, IL 31 is more important to the region than IL 25. and just west of there, Orchard Road (a county route) has far greater traffic and connectivity than either.

following the model of other states, part of the classification effort is to identify "major population centers", not just town centers in general. not every town in the state would be important enough to warrant including in the motorway/trunk network.

some you can see on the talk page of the wiki itself:
osm.wiki/Talk:Illinois/Highway_Classification

for OSMUS Slack, you can sign up here: https://osmus.slack.com/

that page is a draft that i started in 2021. it's not intended to be prescriptive (not yet, anyway), but was an attempt at starting some discussion with the local mapping community to build consensus on a statewide standard.

the discussions never really took off, sadly. the framework of the page and class descriptions were copied from existing pages as a starting point. what little discussion has happened since then has been in favor of moving towards a "functional importance" trunk classification, rather than a "physical characteristics" one. for motorway characteristics, we have `expressway=yes`.

i'm not necessarily saying you're wrong. 47 doesn't always feel very "trunky" in every spot, but it does connect a couple of motorways and serves a massive amount of traffic. relative to the surrounding area, it has a much higher functional importance than other primary roads.

by all means, share your opinion on the wiki talk page, on the OSMUS Slack, or on the OSM Community boards. i would love to move closer to a real consensus of local mappers.

what exactly are the "trunk il standards" you're referencing?

there's been very little discussion on the wiki (osm.wiki/Illinois/Highway_Classification), and not as much IL-specific chatter on the OSMUS Slack, but it seemed like folks wanted to consider trunk from a connectivity standpoint over any physical attributes.

done!