Why did you remove these onramps (again)? They clearly exist.

Neither of the bridges you added the surface=metal to appear to have a metal surface, are you certain this is right?

Setting aside whether this road is highway=trunk or highway=primary (the difference in the US is based on importance and connectivity, not on whether it is an expressway, we have expressway=yes for that), the slip lanes should be highway=primary_link, not highway=primary

Since it is proposed and not yet under construction (afaik) the actual path should be highway=proposed + proposed=path (and when under construction highway=construction + construction=path instead).

The reason it's rendering however is because it is in the route relation. So I would remove them as members until it is completed.

Do you have a source for this or was this manually surveyed? Aerial imagery doesn't seem to confirm this alignment.

It appears that you removed highway on- and offramps?? I'm fairly certain these still exist...

I'd recommend you read over osm.wiki/Wisconsin/Highway_Classification in oredr to get a better Idea of how highways are tagged in Wisconsin (highway=trunk isn't always an expressway for example)

It probably shouldn't be primary simply because of this route designation nonetheless (as it is no longer a federal highway). Also by OSM convention touristic routes are usually not tagged with ref=* (the Lake Michigan Circle Tour isn't, for example)

Reading on the issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/180 It appears the biggest reason it's not rendered is about styling (whether people want to see that much detail). The fact that it isn't approved is not as important (lots of OSM features never went through the process) However reading there and on the forum, there seems to at least be fair consusus that area:highway=* is for linear features and area=yes is for omnidirectional features.

Note that linear ways with an outline in addition should be area:highway=footway (or whatever kind of way), while pedestrian areas with omnidirectional movement is highway=footway + area=yes. (OSM carto doesn't render the former) The difference is outlined here: osm.wiki/Key:area:highway

Unfortunately Chicago's lakefront parks have lots of these mistaggings ("tagging for the renderer"), and can also break routing at times (for example pedestrians will be routed down this cycleway: osm.org/way/1124504884)

Which classification standards are these? A least on the draft for the Illinois standards it says that certain primary roads may be primary: osm.wiki/Illinois/Highway_Classification

I don't believe Historic US-66 really belongs in ref=*, nor should it really be considered for highway classification, given that is is primarily a tourist route.

Hi, I don't believe that this section of Oakton avenue / capitol drive is actual part of WI 190

Hi Hoffmand002,

Are you certain these ramps exist? The Upon my last visit to the area there where no signs of construction for such overpasses and tunnels (and the geometry does not seem quite right...)

Also for future changesets it can be helpful to shortly describe your changes (this way a person reviewing them can know what to look for)

Thanks!

Note that in general, in the US, Trunk is about network connectiveness, so Trunk "spurs" should generally be avoided: osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Yeah I'd say you can simply remove them from the ref=*.

Jetzt habe ich oneway von diesem Stückchen entfernt. Ich bin aber noch nicht sicher, ob das tatsächlich erlaubt ist oder als (sehr kurzes) Geisterradeln zählt :)

What do you mean it would change the object type to bollard?

If you know the dates it's open, you can add it as a conditional restriction (For example bicycle:conditional=permissive @ (Nov 1 - Mar 1))

fee=yes ist jetzt entfernt. Und ja, das heißt Parkscheibe (dieses Taggingschema habe ich hier: osm.wiki/Street_parking#Time_limits gefunden.

LG,
Alex