Hi there

I made the edit primarily because someone deleted the road completely as if it didn't exist when really it was just under long term closure. It looked more like a mistake than a road closure so luckily I did my research before just readding it blindly.

I gave the first link a skim, and to me it says it opens on the 27th of this month, which will be a few weeks. Either way in fairness, it's possible the bus company might be slow to catch on.

I'm not local to Milton Keynes, and by the sounds of it neither are you, but if you're confident it's reopened then feel free to change highway=construction to trunk and delete the construction tag.

Cheers,
Sam

Disagree. Looks totally normal to me. It's obviously not quite expressway/motorway sized but everywhere else in the world, mapping this as primary links is normal, as it separates all the turn movements into their own roads. I can find many examples if you want, with this type of interchange. Additionally for ramp exits it's normal to tag highway=motorway_junction

The speed does increase from 50 to 70 at the north of this section and most notably, this section relies on ramps rather than traffic lights. If you prefer, you might consider tagging something like access_control for this instead of expressway. But personally I think the ramps constitute expressway-type design features for this section of road, which isn't necessarily the same kind of high-speed design as a motorway, just limited access and faster than most normal roads.

129017852

I'd be very surprised if they didn't repave it again in the foreseeable future, even if the council wasn't saying they expect it to reopen in September.

I definitely think it should remain as highway=construction with that in mind, plus the likelihood of there being other subsurface infrastructure there, and the unlikelihood they would use the corridor for anything but a road. Also, this will prevent lazy people from re-adding the road as if it were open, without checking - seeing a big gap in the road is an immediate red flag.

Painted mini roundabouts should be mapped using a highway=mini_roundabout node and not a circular way. Additionally, all roundabout ways should be tagged junction=roundabout and not oneway=yes.

It's not correct to remove a road completely when it's closed or under construction. According to the council it is expected to reopen in September. As such I've readded the section as being under construction (see https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/news/2023/part-a509-be-closed-monday-25-september-2023 )

Cool, good to hear, and no worries :)

Just to let you know, names shouldn't be added to roundabouts unless the name is specific/individual to the roundabout. Additionally you added the through-road name to a roundabout which already had noname=yes, which is contradictory.

See wiki: osm.wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout?uselang=en#The_roundabout_itself
Specific situation: osm.org/way/1144562720/history

It's mentioned here although interchange is lowercased https://www.walton-pc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Minutes-07111.pdf

Else it's the usual suspects sabre-roads.org.uk , roads.org.uk and geograph.org.uk , and sources downstream of OSM.

I don't mind if you feel like deleting.

Overturned lorry situation in 2022:
https://twitter.com/NYorksPolice/status/1544309485828771844
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/transport/a1ma59-allerton-park-interchange-road-closed-between-york-and-knaresborough-after-lorry-overturns-3756968
https://thestrayferret.co.uk/overturned-lorry-causes-road-closure-at-allerton-park-interchange/
https://yorkmix.com/a1m-in-north-yorkshire-to-close-after-lorry-careers-off-the-road/
https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/transport/a1m-closure-major-road-in-north-yorkshire-to-be-closed-tonight-to-recover-hgv-lorry-which-crashed-down-bank-4127427
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/20257477.lorry-overturns-a59-roundabout-knaresborough-york/
Planning application for warehouses:
https://www.planningexplorer.co.uk/applications/view?localAuthority=Harrogate+Borough+Council&reference=20%2F01761%2FDVCON
https://edemocracy.northyorks.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20and%20Regulatory%20Functions%20Committee/20200331/Agenda/2020-03-31%20Planning%20and%20Regulatory%20Functions%20Committee%20Agenda%20and%20Reports.pdf - same one referenced again if you Ctrl+F.
A geograph image:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6399736
And the usual suspects roads.org.uk and sabre-roads.org.uk

It's clear to me there's usage of the name online. Whether under name=* or not I think it should be tagged for searchability. Maybe under loc_name=*.

The criteria for highway=trunk in the UK is actually being a part of the primary route network (green signed). So council managed roads are still highway=trunk. Are you saying they aren't part of the primary route network (can be designated by councils) or are you saying this is simply not a national trunk route?

Wiki for reference: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk

Just figured it made sense for the layout of the road and the way it distributes traffic to smaller service roads, plus the existing turning lane being unclassified already

Is it really more appropriate? It seems that only buses use this under normal circumstances

Not sure, I didn't change the tag. I would be inclined to think bicycle=no is appropriate as I remember there being some signed restrictions.

However, before changing to bicycle=no I'd be careful to verify that this is signed explicitly in real life, otherwise there is no legally enforcable restriction. The nature of the road as being a high-speed expressway alone isn't enough.

Expressways are different to motorroads, see osm.wiki/Key:expressway/

As this is an access controlled (has sliproads), is a dual carriageway, has a 'higher than usual speed limit', it meets the criteria. I'd take higher than usual to be anything above the standard 30mph in most contexts.

Hi. I can acknowledge the lack of official expressway classification. However the tag is appropriate here according to the OSM wiki ( osm.wiki/Key:expressway ).

I added the tag here specifically as the road meets the criteria of it being a dual carriageway, having controlled/limited access i.e. sliproads, and having a relatively high travel speed.

I am adding the tag more widely as the classification of roads in the UK (e.g. highway=trunk) doesn't reflect the design and features of a road, but instead the strategic classification choices by government entities. This is unlike the tagging in other countries which tag based on their opinions. For example in France, there are breaks in otherwise highway=trunk routes just because the road is a single carriageway for a short stretch.

In short, this isn't a tag introduced to reflect a formal classification, but to reflect the high-speed design features of a road, where the highway=* key covers the formal classification already.

Cheers,
Sam.

Are there traffic signs to say it's unlawful to walk here, or is it just impractical?

foot=no is used for legal restrictions, whereas sidewalk=no + expressway=yes is more appropriate for situations where it simply wouldn't make sense to walk.

Hi, does this roundabout have a legal restriction against pedestrian access (circular no pedestrians sign)? If not then foot=no is not appropriate tagging and sidewalk=no/separate should be used.

I definitely didn't create one new myself. Seems like iD editor may have been up to something strange - I can't think how else that could've happened.