See the note on the I-787 ways for the rationale there. As for NY-43, it is a route unto itself, and the signage on the ground seems more like the ramps don't start until the road diverges.

Hi,

Unfortunately, I've had to revert this changeset and several other similar ones that you've made in the area lately. Ocean Parkway is definitely not a motorway, as it has uncontrolled property access in many places. In addition, it is not important enough to be at the trunk/motorway level.

Please see osm.org/changeset/169939717 for more details and to discuss any of these changes further.

Reverted; see osm.org/changeset/169746353 for discussion

Reverted in 169940604. The Taconic is limited access, with partial controlled access. Motorway requires full controlled access, i.e. no intersections including RIROs. Currently I have the southern cutoff at US-6 because the road narrows significantly at this point and the RIROs begin shortly north of here.

Note that expressway=yes is used here on the trunk segments, which denotes the limited access nature of the road.

The primary issues with these was the overuse of motorway (e.g. setting all of Ocean Parkway to motorway), and removing `_link` from some highway ramps. Please discuss here if you disagree with any of these reverts.

The following changesets were reverted in this changeset:
169931511
169931494
169931358
169931597
169931278
169931257
169887702
169839373
169838893
169838539
169795549
169802698
169826615
169748025
169747422
169747403
169747362
169747329
169740359
169739861
169698980
169698856
169698787
169687763

I was changing NY-119 to primary, so I selected all members in that relation and changed them together. When checking my work, I noticed that this part had not been changed, so I looked at it and saw that it wasn't part of any relations.

Do you download data from Overpass? Otherwise if you use the normal way split function, the relations should carry over.

Same thing with osm.org/way/1351485283

Hi,

Somehow the relations didn't carry over when you split this way: osm.org/way/1351485284

I'll fix it; I just wanted to point it out so that you could figure out what might have been the cause.

The comment here has a typo; I meant "deletion"

Hello, and thanks for contributing.

I've reverted this change since it goes against the 2021 trunk/motorway classification guidelines, which impose additional requirements on what is allowed to be either of those classifications. In this case, the road definitely is controlled-access (i.e. a freeway), but it does not directly connect to any other trunk or motorway. As such, it is not part of the interconnected trunk/motorway network, and shouldn't be that classification. You can read more about the guidelines here: osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

The road already was and still is tagged with expressway=yes, which conveys the upgraded construction. If there are signs that explicitly say that foot and bicycle traffic is prohibited, you may tag the road with foot=no and/or bicycle=no to convey this.

Also, looking at Bing Streetside, there are signs that say "PRIVATE - KEEP OUT". The imagery date is fairly old, so can you verify that you've surveyed this and confirmed that it's now public?

Hi,

Generally, access=yes is assumed if there is no tag. While it's not wrong to add, it's probably best to only add it in borderline situations where someone might wonder if there is no public access.

Hello,

If this is private property, access=private should probably be used without any bus=* (or similar) tags.

Hello,

Please make sure that you use lowercase letters in your tags. access=Yes should be access=yes.

JOSM glitched out and uploaded before I could write a changeset comment. The comment was supposed to be "Downgrade overclassified roads".

Hello,

I am looking at the following two ways:
osm.org/way/31722444
osm.org/way/1176299267

In this changeset, it looks like you added the tag `toll:backward=||designated`. What did you mean by this? I would have just changed it to `toll:lanes:backward`, but it looks like there are only two lanes on this road.

Since I haven't heard back, I am going to revert this for the time being. Note that the limited access nature of the road is already reflected in expressway=yes, which is independent of the classification. I don't think that the road is as important as the other motorways or trunks in the area, which is why I think primary is appropriate.

Also note this section from the national 2021 classification guidelines: "The Trunk classification generally should not be applied to highways that are parallel to motorways, especially highways within a short distance (less than 5 miles) from the motorway."

Hi,

I'm looking at the classification guidelines now, and it shows this road as primary south of Sunrise Highway. It does map to trunk for the section north to the Southern State Parkway, but I don't think that it is that much more important than the other section. Also, a driver can get between the two motorways using the Robert Moses Causeway, so there is already a trunk route covering this.

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, I neglected to look at the history on these ways; since they were highway=residential, and the geometry was quite bad in some places, I assumed that they had been neglected since the TIGER import.

Also, I had not made myself familiar with the Connecticut classification guidelines, which I should have done beforehand. I did not realize that it had such a strict stance towards tertiary and especially unclassified roads.

I've just sent a message in the OSMUS Slack about the situation, and tagged both you and jnighan in the thread. I'd appreciate any input on the topic (mainly whether to use highway=unclassified).

Hi,

I've reverted this since these are ramps, not roads unto themselves.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163029047