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

Before making additional changes to highway classifications in Minnesota please refer to ongoing statewide guidelines being developed at: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification

This change was made based on old aerial photos. Am manually reverting

I thank you for your interest. I forgot to send you a link that explains even better. Please look at this page: osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification/Helper_keys As that page explains whether these keys are truly useful (some have proven to be, others not yet) and how long we will be using them is to-be-determined. They may just be used for the duration of our project (perhaps a year?) The other thing you will notice is some of the usage is subjective. And some of the keys (like MN_metro_edge, MN_metro_spoke and MN_to_trunk) are very sparsely used). Another mapper could choose different segments to map, for example and still be "correct" for the purpose of the project. I did worry as I came up with newer ones whether I was using well designed name spaces, but I focused instead on short-term utility. If any other state (or country) wants to use this type of approach I would gladly co-operate to make improvements. The link above has renderings (overpass turbo) showing what roads & boundaries have been tagged. That will give you a better idea about what they are trying to do. Thank you for your comments, and keep them coming!

This is part of a highway classification project in the U.S. State of Minnesota. Please look at OSM wiki for Key:MN_to_trunk. It is also explained in more detail at the Minnesota/Minnesota Highway Classification page osm.wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification and at osm.wiki/Rjgambrel/Trunk_highway_overpass_turbo_mashup. If you have any further questions you can message me or add question here.

Am trying to add some paving info to a number of ways in Washington County. I found this unclassified/minor road which you just reclassified from residential to minor. I would like to change it even further to service road. Only purpose of this and two other connect ways seem to be to service various things like signs and park. OK?

Vsahith. I made the changes. Not perfect but the crossovers now show how cars would flow from S to W and from N to E. My changeset is: osm.org/changeset/112846245 This link should zoom in on the intersection: osm.org/edit?changeset=112680039#map=19/45.06085/-93.24740

Good luck with your mapping!

Vsahith, thank you for taking the time to look at the issue and make changes. I am going to suggest what I think it is a better change (although for complicated intersections like this there can be differences of opinions). I tried the change I am proposing and it seems like it will work and look better. Here is my proposal ... 1) eliminate the two E/W segments that connect the two sides. 2) imagine where N bound cars would go in order to go W onto 51st Ave NE. 3) imagine where S bound cars would go in order to to E onto 51st Ct NE. 4) They would both follow simi-circular paths that would not cross each other. So ... eliminating the crossovers that you have and replacing with two arc shaped crossing that do not overlap each other seems more accurate from a traffic flow point of view. If it is not obvious what I am suggesting and you want me to make the changes I can. Then you can look at my changes and see if you agree. Otherwise just make the changes and let me know. I will look at them. Thanks again for your engagement!

The edit you made introduces navigation mistakes: You have made it impossible for S bound traffic to turn East and impossible for N bound traffic to turn W. Please make corrections to this edit

Your changeset is so large and in an area I locally reside in, so I can't easily see what you are changing. Please make changes sets smaller and to not cover so much area.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112179184

Bane is a good word. A lot of time has been spent by me and you doing research on this one node! And clearly someone spent time putting it on the map in the first place, hence my hesitancy to remove it. Hopefully some very wise mapper will handle it some day.

This changeset includes ways that are marked as under construction. (Example Broadway Avenue. There is no evidence of construction at all (I was there today). The original roadway that is still there has been removed from OSM. It is not possible to use navigation tools to choose an auto route that uses the imaginary road under construction or the real road that is not mapped. (I tried only 1 tool) Further more, the standard rendering in OSM does not show the existing road.

All is good now. I was able to revert any changes due to the new construction, but left any other changes you made. It was a blessing in disguise because I actually found newer aerial photos that I could use. I keep forgetting that I should look at all the aerial photos that are available. Some are later than others.

Keep at the mapping. Every new edit you do will help refine your skills.

The escalation manager agreed that this change was incorrect. I will now try to revert the changes.

I am in the process of trying to work with the author and an escalation manager at Amazon about this change set. These changes partially reverted some changes that were made prior to this change. The prior changes reflected on site survey after new construction. This changeset is based on old aerial photos.

We did look at class:bicycle (and some of the background, talk, ...) Our understanding of class:bicycle is that it is about "desirability" of a particular way. Our approach is about "level of stress". We have looked at some work done in Ottawa about this and Minneapolis has also tackled this issue (both gave talks at State of Map US in September). Eventually we would like to collaborate with them to see if there is any approach that makes sense to deal with stress. I suspect the ultimate tagging would be bundled with class:bicycle or some of its "sub tags". Right now we are just trying to see if there is anything that makes sense, does not break existing tools, provides some value, and is not counter to other bike related tags, etc. Thanks for your time to read & reply.

Jan,

I forgot to mention that in the update. I will be more careful in the future. In a few other changesets in the area I made similar adds of tag LOS. I mentioned it in them. Here is what I am doing:

I'm working with another mapper in Massachusetts and he is working with one in Ottawa. We are variously seeing if there is a way to add biking "level of stress" to the map. This effort on my part is a proof of concept (POC). I picked a tag that doesn't appear to be used. I will use in a very limited area (about 3 or 4 times the span of this changeset). When POC is done I will either deleted the tags, or wrap them into a proposal for OSM to consider. I have looked at various discussions about doing more tagging for cycling and did not see any proposal that seems to come near to what we will be proposing (if POC is successful). Let me know if you have more questions.

Thank you for the comment. That makes a lot of sense. Also I looked at all the good practices which were also good. In our area we have lots of Cycle Paths (some of which I entered) and some Cycle & Foot Paths. Now that I have researched the difference a few times, I am sure the right categorization is the latter. At the time of the edit I was interested in how it rendered. I now know I should not care so much about that. Thank you for the comment.