The proof of concept has been abandoned. I do plan to clean up the changes I made that are not relevant anymore. I have been a bit inactive recently but will raise the priority of this cleanup activity. Thank you for noticing and commenting.

As I think I mentioned there are a number of mappers (myself included) who have jumped onto this new tag and are using it in various different ways. I tried to stop thinking about this for awhile, but am now ready to jump in. I will be putting something together for the channel in the next few days (maybe today?). I believe the guidance is vague and think it can be sharpened up if we can reach a consensus. I will do some research and lay out some facts pointing to a few segments around the state including one of yours. Like the motorway island discussion I will be asking folks which segments they think should have expressway=yes and why. Am hopeful that through the discussion we can reach some reasonable consensus. Easier now than a year from now I think. While it is just one tag, a lot of time has been devoted in US highway classification and americana map discussing it. In the end, whether it renders as if it is not there or if it renders differently it is probably best that we try to make it consistent. Thank you again for your engaging in this discussion.

The reason I questioned is the two at grade intersections. I understand that there is a plan to achieve full motorway or expressway by a certain date, but that date isn't here yet. I can only map what I see on the ground, not what the plan is. I will defer to your better judgement on this. I may open up a slack discussion about this so others can weigh in as well. The "process" is to have discussion and come to consensus. You are a very responsible mapper so I know you understand that. There is another mapper I am dealing with now that doesn't seem to engage. If I bring this up in slack it is just to provide the opening to others so it is a coummunity decision. Do not take offense! And thanks for all your contributions! I see them all over Minnesota (starting with my first contact with you near ALexandria.

In this changeset you reverted a change I made recently. My change was made to conform with the agreed guidelines for Minn highway classification and your change (with minimal changeset information) goes counter to that guidance. This "motorway island" was discussed in the community discussion about how to handle islands including this specific one. Can you look at that guidance specifically at "island" US14a (listed in table S3) and explain why you think that agreed guidance is wrong? Please refer to osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification section 5.2.2. I remember inviting you to the public discussion. I am not sure whether you participated or not. Please respond here or message me if you want or join the Slack discussion to comment at: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCV2P9QET

This changeset has a section with even more at grade intersections. I believe it is not expressway. Let me know your thoughts.

David, The section of trunk that you added expressway tags to doesn't seem to meet the US def of expressway which is a "slightly degraded" from motorway standards. In this stretch there are two at grade intersections 480th and 490th that I think break "slightly" Let me know or bring up in the slack channel for wider discussion. If you are OK with reverting I will do the changes. I am finding a lot of expressway classifications. Most of the folks don't know about our wiki. I know you do and have been involved in the discussions.

This changeset (looks like the last one you did this year) adds the Expressway tag to a part of a trunk highway. There is a Minnesota project on highway classification (which is part of a US wide project) that clarifies when the tag should be used. This stretch does not meet that criteria so I will be changing the tag to expressway=no. A link to the Minn project is: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. Feel free to message me, comment in this discussion or join the discussion on slack.

valid motorway island or should better be classified a trunk/expressway. Lots of disagreement across US but we thought we found consensus. In my effort (today) to review expressway=yes segments I found this about yours (not done yet, so might have to revise this): you seem to equate a divided highway as the main (only?) criterion to qualifying it for expressway=yes. The guidelines require more than that. The standard is something like "slightly degraded" from motorway. (Don't remember the words exactly, but that is the intent, it seems.) Having a lot of at grade intersections, we feel, does not qualify as "slightly degraded". I look forward to looking at your Nebraska consensus. Maybe you will have simplified guidelines we can adopt (after consensus discussion). Enjoy! And thanks for your time.

Thank you for continuing the conversation. Coming up with state guidelines required lots of discussions and consensus building. The attempt was to eliminate ambiguity where possible with the possibility, always, of adding new ambiguity. It was a 1.0 attempt and maybe someday in the future we will revisit. I wish you luck with your effort. It can be daunting. Specifically with respect to the expressway tags, I have been reviewing all of the current use of it in MN. (I did this before we started the effort, and of course there was very little.) Our guidelines try to provide both general guidelines about when to use (which conforms we think with the broader US guidelines). The island discussion was difficult but in the end we reviewed each island and made a determination as to whether it was a

Who instructed you that? I think MN tried hard to adhere to US guidelines. Feel free to message me directly.

About the time you were making the specific change to a section of US 14 by adding the expressway=yes tag there was a discussion going on and reached about which motorway islands on US 14 (and other highways in Minnesota) should be classified as expressway. I have removed the expressway=yes for this small segment of US 14 to comply with the agreed Minnesota guidelines. If you are editing roads in Minnesota, please refer to: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. The changeset where I reverted the expressway=yes change is: 124751076. Please feel free to message me and if you would like, join the Slack discussion about Minnesota Highway classification or make comments on the wiki page.

Please refer to note by SpeedMcCool at NW end of your changeset. Please do not revert Missie's reclassification to trunk w/o dialoging with SpeedMcCool or me in Slack #local-minnesota channel. This is part of the minn highway classification project which I know you are aware of. Thanks!

Thank you for the quick response. About the specific changeset: local knowledge certainly trumps less local knowledge (I live in Henn cty). I would say this particular set of "sidewalks" is marginal and could go either way. Since we both use ID, I will use ID terms ... Whenever I see an asphalt "path" I generally mark it as "Cycle & Foot Path" assuming that the developers or city intended (designated) it for both uses. Whenever I see a concrete "path" I use either Sidewalk or Footpath. The former if the path is parallel to a street, the latter if it is not. Since this is a small neighborhood and the path is relatively narrow, I can see it being considered a sidewalk (not footpath). I don't know if you know about the ID tool called "Show History Panel". I always have that visible so when I click on a feature it shows me who last touched it. If you select PeWu you can see what the various changes were. I would encourage you to always do that so you can see how your change relates to other changes. Another good practice is to reach out to other mappers especially if you think the edit they made is questionable. This helps all of us collaborate better. One last thought -- use the changeset comment to better explain what your change is about. Your comment just says "foot path" which adds no context. On this particular changes a comment like: "Removed cycle from path in neighborhood where cycling not allowed on sidewalks" or some such goes a long way to indicate why you did what you did. Happy mapping! We need as many as possible to make this map better!

You have made a number of changes to cycyle/foot paths by removing tags that I carefully put on the day before your change. Did you look at the history of the way before making the change? It is customary to not remove information that has been added without trying to have a dialog with the mapper that added the information. Please respond to this so we can have a discussion about why you made your changes (which I think are wrong). Your changeset comment is not terribly helpful in explaining why you did what you did. If you look at my changeset history you will see that I am making extensive changes in Washington County to improve the tagging of cyclable paths.

One of the changes you put in has an issue that you should address. The segment of 41st Street North between 40th and Kokanee actually has two ways. One is residential the the other is minor/unclassified. Also one of them does not connect to 40th. One more issue: The word avenue should never be abbreviated. It should be spelled out completely. This is an OSM "golden rule". Welcome to mapping! Am sure you will enjoy it!

You have made a change to a Minnesota motorway island either promoting it to a motorway or demoting it to a trunk. Please refer to the wiki under development where this topic is being discussed and agreed upon. If you have any concerns with what is being proposed, please reply to this comment. Refer to: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. If you want to join the discussion to see others opinions or offer your own, see: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCV2P9QET/p1643751261859339

You have made a change to a Minnesota motorway island either promoting it to a motorway or demoting it to a trunk. Please refer to the wiki under development where this topic is being discussed and agreed upon. If you have any concerns with what is being proposed, please reply to this comment. Refer to: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. If you want to join the discussion to see others opinions or offer your own, see: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCV2P9QET/p1643751261859339

You have made a change to a Minnesota motorway island either promoting it to a motorway or demoting it to a trunk. Please refer to the wiki under development where this topic is being discussed and agreed upon. If you have any concerns with what is being proposed, please reply to this comment. Refer to: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. If you want to join the discussion to see others opinions or offer your own, see: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCV2P9QET/p1643751261859339

You have made a change to a Minnesota motorway island either promoting it to a motorway or demoting it to a trunk. Please refer to the wiki under development where this topic is being discussed and agreed upon. If you have any concerns with what is being proposed, please reply to this comment. Refer to: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. If you want to join the discussion to see others opinions or offer your own, see: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCV2P9QET/p1643751261859339

You have made a change to a Minnesota motorway island either promoting it to a motorway or demoting it to a trunk. Please refer to the wiki under development where this topic is being discussed and agreed upon. If you have any concerns with what is being proposed, please reply to this comment. Refer to: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. If you want to join the discussion to see others opinions or offer your own, see: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCV2P9QET/p1643751261859339