W.R.T. to Market St/etc north of Eureka, I bumped these up to trunk based on signage EB at Eureka and Market indicating destination NB I-5 traffic to take Market north. I'm happy to defer to your local knowledge here and will bump these back down as soon as I can (currently only at my computer a couple hours a week). My intent wasn't to trample on your knowledge of the region and I'm sorry I didn't reach out to you before making some of these changes. With that being said, they are easily reversible and ultimately prompted the discussion that needed to be had. If we're in agreement that CA 299<->44 is acceptable as 'trunk' then there's no disagreement as far as tagging goes, with the understanding that roads north of Eureka need to be bumped back down to primary.

These are "drafts" in the sense that they are incomplete and that many routes and areas are still under discussion, not in the sense that every road or area needs to undergo a formal voting process. The linked documentation is the summarization of months of discussion and debate involving more US mappers than I have seen in any debate over this on the mailing lists in years past. While I am the one who ultimately changed the 'highway' tag in this region, these changes were not undiscussed nor unilateral. It isn't a mass, automated re-tagging if I'm also local to the region and am familiar with many of these roads. CA 299 is the road I am least familiar with of my proposed routes, but my justifications for thinking this should be a 'trunk' route are further down.

The vast majority of the roads I personally proposed are north of I-80 and Sacramento, and most are roads I have driven personally. I put them up towards the largest active discussion I could find regarding road classification with one issue north of Alturas that was resolved after some discussion. I think it would be a bit absurd to put this to a wiki vote; you'd be lucky to have more than two mappers local to northern CA proper participate in a wiki vote. Establishing consensus in areas where there are only a low single-digit number of active, local mappers is going to be difficult and I wouldn't consider a wiki vote of three people authoritative either. Likewise, sending a list of 8 or so roads I propose to bump up to 'trunk' to the mailing list doesn't seem to be appropriate either. The only other CA mapper that is active there but not on Slack is SteveA, who I wouldn't necessarily consider "local" to northern CA.

Most mappers who are concerned with improving US highway classification and are trying to productively reach a consensus have been discussing this on Slack, which is why my "proposal" was posted there. It seems to me that you're upset you haven't been involved with discussions, but the options I've seen are:
1. Private DM, not useful for public discussion - this is a long-contentious topic that concerns more than just you and I.
2. Changeset comments, too decentralized and impossible to keep track of to be of much usefulness for public discussion and consensus building. I will cross-link this changeset to the local-california Slack channel so they are aware of your objection and can participate here.
3. Mailing lists, which have an unfortunate extended history of being unproductive regarding highway class discussion.
4. Wiki, which is fairly useful for discussion, but you cannot participate on by admission.
5. Slack, where there has been active daily discussion about road classes with mostly productive results.

I'm not on the Discord, but if there are similar discussions going on there that are active and productive I'd be more than happy to participate.

My reasoning for this highway being 'trunk' is that it is more important than neighboring primary roads. It is the best route connecting Eureka (greater CSA of pop 45k) to Redding and through to Reno/Carson. This road is an ex-US highway, has more open geometry than nearby roads supporting faster traffic, and has frequent passing lanes which other nearby highways to my knowledge don't have nearly as frequently. If this road is to be 'primary' (only regionally important), I think CA 3, 36, and 96 would need to be discussed as well since it seems these play a less important role in the highway network than CA 299. This is corroborated with Caltrans AADT counts (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census), which shows higher minimum counts on CA 299 than on other nearby highways.

I'm happy to revert this if discussion pans out to determine that this road ought to be 'primary', but it should be done so on the merit of discussion rather than turf. If you have "zero urge" to participate in discussion I'm not sure what to say here. Why specifically do you think this road isn't appropriate to be 'trunk'? Do you disagree with tagging important inter-regional highways as 'trunk'? If so, why?

Bradley

Hi Adamant1,
The proposal to move main interregional long-haul routes to 'trunk' is here: osm.wiki/United_States/Highway_classification. Specific guideance proposed for CA here: osm.wiki/California/Draft_Highway_Classification_Guidelines. Most of the discussion around this has been on the #highway-classification and #local-california channels of the OSM Slack, which in my experience has been much more productive for discussion than changeset comments or the talk-us mailing list. I generally don't like having these discussions over private message since I think they ought to be public. If you are opposed to using this, the talk page of the wiki article has been useful as well. I apologize that I haven't specifically reached out to you but these changes have been discussed with a handful of other CA mappers as well as other US mappers working on this proposal without any objection. If you are concerned about the 'trunk' reclassing proposal in its entirety Slack is where the majority of this discussion has been happening and I would encourage you to voice your objections there.
Bradley

Hello,
This changeset broke the Toiyable Ntl Forest relation - please run the JOSM validator before uploading when working with complex relations.

Bradley

Hello,
Why did J5 get dropped to service here?

Hello,
Has ground broken on the entire area under the way? This site as it is tagged is pretty enormous. 'landuse=construction' should only be used where construction has actually broken ground and not where it is planned to take place eventually.
Bradley

Hello,
Please note the 'name' tag should be used for the object names only and not for descriptions about the object ("Private Property") - see osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Bradley

Hello,
This section of highway has direct access to adjacent properties which means that it is not a freeway/motorway. I'll be correcting it back down to 'trunk', just a heads up.
Bradley

This boundary is still broken. There are overlapping outer ways between the Donner Summit Canyon property and the Creekside Woods property. See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Invalid_examples, specifically "Overlapping, unclosed member ways belonging to the same role". This is the fourth time I've had to explain why your changes have broken this relation. These are mistakes that I would understand from someone new to OSM, since the relations here are complex and need some cleanup. However, respectfully, it's frustrating to have to explain the basics of OSM data types to someone who is getting paid to map professionally on behalf of a company. Please familiarize yourself with how these relations work before continuing to modify them.

I'm not asking you to tag for the renderer. Yes, 'protect_class=21' will not render on its own, though I would argue this is a protected and managed landscape (class 5) rather than just a community recreation area (21). The relation is still tagged with 'leisure=nature_reserve', which should render. So, for the third time, the reason it is not rendering is because this changeset broke the relation.

The correct way to expand the boundary would be to split the boundary around the outdated "Donner Summit Canyon" way, add the outer to the relation, remove the previously commonly shared portion of the boundary, and remove the outdated Donner Summit Canyon way/relation entirely. Instead, this changeset leaves the outdated way in place and adds a bunch of random natural/landuse=forest areas to the relation in a way that breaks the relation. This can be seen by simply clicking the link for the relation below and noting that the ways highlighted do not correspond to the boundary. That is what I'm asking you to fix, since those changes were made in this changest.

You're right about the Donner Summit Canyon parcel being part of the state park. I didn't realize that TDLT conveyed the property to the state system.

However, this changeset still broke the Donner Summit Memorial Park relation since it is not rendering anymore and is tagged in a way that should render on osm-carto.

Hi,
It appears this changeset has broken the Donner Memorial State Park relation. Random 'natural'/'landuse=forest' areas in adjacent conservation properties have been added to the relation (on first glance, in the Donner Summit Canyon area, which is owned and managed by the Truckee Donner Land Trust and is not a part of the state park). The boundaries as they were before these changes were correct with respect to land ownership records maintained by Nevada and Placer county so I don't understand why these changes were made.
Bradley

Cool, sounds agreeable to me. The tag I gave was simply what I thought was the best fit given what info I could find about the location. If you have more detailed info then feel free to change it.

Hello,
The 'tourism=hostel' tag is defined as follows: "Hostels provide accommodation where guests can rent a bed in a shared room, sometimes a bunk bed in a dormitory, and share a bathroom, kitchen and lounge."

The maximum guest capacity here is 15 and lodging is described as "six ground floor rooms, each with a queen bed and private bathroom", with a shared living space and kitchen. This isn't an arrangement typical of what most people in the US would consider a "hotel" to be, and fits closely with the definition for 'tourism=hostel'.

Bradley

I am extremely confused about all these very recent reclassifications. What, exactly, do you now consider a trunk road?

You clearly aren't using "major highways" because this part of CA 99 would certainly qualify. Divided, limited access highways don't count either since you downgraded CA 108 expressway sections to 'primary'. Super-twos don't seem to count either. Four-lane limited access roads don't count, since you're downgrading those portions of US 50 and US 101. Yet, recently, you bumped up US 50 on east shore of Tahoe (4 lane undivided road with no access control) to 'trunk', as well as from Carson City through to Dayton (4 lane undivided road with partial access control) to 'trunk' as well.

Frankly after multiple attempts by myself and others to reach out to you about these changes, it feels like you're changing classifications simply to have changed them.

Please use the changeset comments to explain your reasoning for these changes! Especially when it is basically impossible to discern why you are making these changes based on your edit history.

Along the portion you tagged 'motorway' in this changeset, from west to east, there are:

- high quality sidewalks on both sides of the highway until Witherby St. & Couts St. turnoffs on south and north side of the highway respectively (aside from Barnett underpass).

- bus stops at Witherby and Veterans Village

- no 'pedestrians prohibited' signs afterwards (nor anywhere else on this highway and associated on/off ramps as far as I could find)

- bike lanes on the highway connecting from Barnett through to Washington via on/off ramps (NB ending after RIRO with Couts St)

- sidewalks and bike lanes returning as the highway continues past I-5 on/off ramps after Washington overpass

- roadside parking and direct access to parking lots NB just after Sassafras

I would argue the only section of this road that could be called a 'motorway' is the short piece just after the western ramps connecting with Washington to the I-5 on/off ramps, but it would be silly to tag something that short as 'motorway', especially when the on ramp to I-5 is signed with a 'Freeway Entrance' sign, indicating that the DOT apparently does not consider this portion of the Pacific Hwy to be a freeway.

San Diego appears to have many freeway-like roads (Sea World interchanges, Friars Rd), including a handful of decommissioned "freeways" like this one (Kearny Villa Rd./Old Us 395). However, it also has a robust, continuous network of high standard interstate and state freeways that do not have sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and on-street parking interspersed - which makes it fair to say that any roadway that has these things cannot be in the same 'motorway' category. These "in-between" roads are generally tagged as 'trunk' in the US.

Bradley

Hello,
I'm likely going to revert this change again for a couple of reasons:

1. While it may be officially the case, signage indicating this section is US 395 Business Route is nearly non-existent and thus is not useful for navigation. This is why I had this section tagged with 'unsigned_ref', rather than 'ref'. (osm.wiki/Key:unsigned_ref)

2. This section is not up to 'primary' standards as indicated by wiki guidance: "A few major urban arterials also may merit highway=primary if and only if they provide a clearly better routing (higher speeds and fewer delays arising from traffic signals, stop signs, or other obstructions) than available urban arterials bearing highway=secondary" (osm.wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Primary_tag_2).

3. While it is a "through" road, it is not as important as other primary roads in the region. Virginia doesn't move the same level of traffic as other nearby primary roads; especially through the urban core it is narrow and slow moving. It doesn't augment the freeway network like McCarran, Pyramid, and Veterans do. It isn't used as a major route through town; instead it mainly services inter-urban traffic, similar to other 'secondary' roads in Reno/Sparks.

I understand that road classes are very fuzzy in the US and are still a subject of debate, and that old 'main' through roads are tagged 'primary' in many other parts in the US, but for this region this tagging is inconsistent relative to other 'primary' roads in the region. I appreciate your desire to contribute here, but I am asking that you respect the fact that I currently live locally in the region, that I have lived in the greater region here for as long as you have been alive, and I have been driving here for over a decade. I have received complaints from another active mapper in the area about your changes to the road classifications in the greater Nevada region, and while you're certainly welcome to make changes wherever you like, you will receive pushback from local mappers who have put a lot of thought into local road classifications, especially since they are time-consuming changes to correct.

I am willing to leave the changes you recently made on US 50 (primary->trunk) since 'trunk' classification in particular is unsettled and recently came up again on talk-us without consensus. Nevada's multi-lane highways with occasional divided carriageways and sporadic access control are a pretty grey zone. However, I will most likely revert any changes bumping any more roads in the Reno/Sparks area up to 'primary' or 'trunk', given that there are relatively unambiguous examples of both in the region (in urban context).

Bradley

Hello,
This stretch of Pacific Highway does not meet standards for 'motorway' use. This is an expressway, with sidewalks, bike lanes, direct access to a limited number of properties, and with "Freeway Entrance" signage not beginning until the ramps connection with I-5. Just a heads up that I will be reverting this back to 'trunk' accordingly.

Bradley

Hi TaubBear,
Why are you dropping so many of these roads to service? Many, if not most, of these roads are county roads that are accessible to the public. While they are rough and often require a high-clearance vehicle (and occasionally a 4x4), the "quality" of a road doesn't drop it to 'service' on its own.

From the wiki:

Service road: "Generally for access to a building, service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc."

Unclassified road: "...minor public roads typically at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network...unclassified roads may be unpaved in larger, poorer or more remote/rural areas"

I am likely going to change these back soon, but wanted to reach out first.

Also, if a highway doesn't exist, it should simply be deleted rather than use the name field to describe the road as non-existent (which is not the name of the highway)

Bradley

Hello,
I going to revert this changeset for a number of problems:

- Turn lanes should only be mapped as separate ways if they are physically separated from the main roadway (ie, a right turn that bypasses an intersection around a physical island). Here, this only applies to the turn from SB McCarran to WB 7th.

- These ways should be tagged as 'link' roads - if the main way is a 'secondary', then the turn lane should be tagged 'secondary_link'

- The 'name' tag is used for signposted (verifiable) names and not for descriptions of what the object is ("West 7th street right turn onto McCarran south", etc) - see osm.wiki/Good_practice