Harassment sock puppet account Shipu Innu documented at osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Sockpuppets

I could use a hand untangling this MEX 1 / BCS 1 routes as they're mixed up in the changeset where I updated the federal highway 1 route.

I've restored the way tagging and added a route relation:
osm.org/relation/13915662

Can you determine whether the northernmost section is supposed to be there? It was tagged that way originally.

Hey thanks for the note. I was working on mapping the Mexico federal highways (e.g. highway 2: osm.org/relation/70954). I found these cases of ref=MEX 2 which looked like they were in error. So I guess I'm confused - do the federal highways and state highways use the same ref scheme? How can you tell the difference between them? I am sure your data source is correct but now I'm not sure how the tagging is supposed to differentiate these two classes of highway.

For anyone confused by this discussion, it's a continuation of the discussion on osm.org/changeset/118237480

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/117867523

I think this particular edit is okay and should stand. It's accepted practice that motorway islands should not be tagged for a single grade separated intersection.

Discussion thread on talk-ca:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-February/010343.html

Thanks @Spaghetti Monster for reverting this change. I agree that given the quality issues that a rollback was necessary.

@CarniLvr79, openstreetmap is a community project, and it's important for you to listen to the concerns of other mappers and not dismiss them.

Specifically, polygons are are allowed to overlap when features overlap. If a feature is on top of another feature, then those polygons representing them should overlap as well, with the layer=* tag used to indicate which ones are on top.

For buildings, the convention is to map the actual footprint of the building, not just the bits you're able to see during summer imagery when leaves are on the trees.

Go away Michael.

Thanks for taking on this cleanup!

I disagree that a change in physical construction style should change a highway's classification value. Highway classifications for trunk and below are based on the road's connectivity value in the road network. A road should not toggle back and forth between classification values, it should have one consistent value through its entire length.

This road might be primary, consistent with the surrounding road network, or it might be trunk, part of a much longer trunk routing through the UP. However, it cannot be trunk while the surrounding roads are primary.

This is described in more detail in osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

I'd encourage you to join the OSM US Slack, slack.openstreetmap.us, where these topics are discussed in great detail in the channel #local-michigan and #highway-classification.

That's not really an acceptable response. If you are going to replace a feature, you need to do it in one changeset. Now that you've deleted that patch of woods, it's missing from the map with only the promise of adding it back in the future.

Hi, can you explain why you deleted this patch of wood?

osm.org/way/526651029

This was a validly mapped wooded area.

Thanks!

Corrected description: Mexico Federal routes 2 and 2D

Thanks for the feedback. The importance-based classification system that has emerged as a national consensus is supported by dozens of mappers that have collaborated on writing this documentation. I'm sorry that you find this insufficient, but I'm not seeing any willingness on your part to constructively participate. Since you've stated several times that you don't care either way, I'm going to go ahead and implement the consensus classification. Thanks for the discussion.

Expressways should be tagged expressway=yes. Trunk roads should be classified consistently with osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Great, I'm glad you agree that Redding and Eureka are regionally important cities. Specific clarification about importance and connectivity are described in osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance -- no Philosophy degree needed.

The only question really on the table is the specific routing through the city to connect CA-44 and CA-299. Since they directly intersect at Eureka and Market, the most obvious candidate would be for trunk routing to follow 299 until it hits 44 and then to continue on along 44 until it hits the motorway stretch. That would be consistent with the connectivity principle as well as the stated principle in the guideline which prefers minimizing route changes.

I would encourage you to read through the link above in detail as it really covers a lot of the questions you're posing here.

> In the meantime I can't even get a clear answer in this discussion about what roads should be tagged as trunk roads or why

It's spelled out in: osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Trunk roads are "the most important non-motorway roads that provide principal, long-haul connections between population centers of regional importance."

Plain and simple. The task thus is to determine which cities are of regional importance and to determine what the most important routes are between them. Those are the trunk roads, and that's the determination that's being made by each of the state-specific classification guides. Yes, there is some squishiness to which cities are "regionally important" but that's what we've been hashing out.

So the decision space is this: is city regionally important? If yes - make sure the most important roads between them are trunk or motorway. If no, they should not be connected by trunk roads.