Just to let you know, names shouldn't be added to roundabouts unless the name is specific/individual to the roundabout. Additionally you added the through-road name to a roundabout which already had noname=yes, which is contradictory.

See wiki: junction=roundabout?uselang=en#The_roundabout_itself
Specific situation: way/1144562720/history

It's mentioned here although interchange is lowercased https://www.walton-pc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Minutes-07111.pdf

Else it's the usual suspects sabre-roads.org.uk , roads.org.uk and geograph.org.uk , and sources downstream of OSM.

I don't mind if you feel like deleting.

Overturned lorry situation in 2022:
https://twitter.com/NYorksPolice/status/1544309485828771844
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/transport/a1ma59-allerton-park-interchange-road-closed-between-york-and-knaresborough-after-lorry-overturns-3756968
https://thestrayferret.co.uk/overturned-lorry-causes-road-closure-at-allerton-park-interchange/
https://yorkmix.com/a1m-in-north-yorkshire-to-close-after-lorry-careers-off-the-road/
https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/transport/a1m-closure-major-road-in-north-yorkshire-to-be-closed-tonight-to-recover-hgv-lorry-which-crashed-down-bank-4127427
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/20257477.lorry-overturns-a59-roundabout-knaresborough-york/
Planning application for warehouses:
https://www.planningexplorer.co.uk/applications/view?localAuthority=Harrogate+Borough+Council&reference=20%2F01761%2FDVCON
https://edemocracy.northyorks.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20and%20Regulatory%20Functions%20Committee/20200331/Agenda/2020-03-31%20Planning%20and%20Regulatory%20Functions%20Committee%20Agenda%20and%20Reports.pdf - same one referenced again if you Ctrl+F.
A geograph image:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6399736
And the usual suspects roads.org.uk and sabre-roads.org.uk

It's clear to me there's usage of the name online. Whether under name=* or not I think it should be tagged for searchability. Maybe under loc_name=*.

The criteria for highway=trunk in the UK is actually being a part of the primary route network (green signed). So council managed roads are still highway=trunk. Are you saying they aren't part of the primary route network (can be designated by councils) or are you saying this is simply not a national trunk route?

Wiki for reference: highway=trunk

Just figured it made sense for the layout of the road and the way it distributes traffic to smaller service roads, plus the existing turning lane being unclassified already

Is it really more appropriate? It seems that only buses use this under normal circumstances

Not sure, I didn't change the tag. I would be inclined to think bicycle=no is appropriate as I remember there being some signed restrictions.

However, before changing to bicycle=no I'd be careful to verify that this is signed explicitly in real life, otherwise there is no legally enforcable restriction. The nature of the road as being a high-speed expressway alone isn't enough.

Expressways are different to motorroads, see expressway=*/

As this is an access controlled (has sliproads), is a dual carriageway, has a 'higher than usual speed limit', it meets the criteria. I'd take higher than usual to be anything above the standard 30mph in most contexts.

Hi. I can acknowledge the lack of official expressway classification. However the tag is appropriate here according to the OSM wiki ( expressway=* ).

I added the tag here specifically as the road meets the criteria of it being a dual carriageway, having controlled/limited access i.e. sliproads, and having a relatively high travel speed.

I am adding the tag more widely as the classification of roads in the UK (e.g. highway=trunk) doesn't reflect the design and features of a road, but instead the strategic classification choices by government entities. This is unlike the tagging in other countries which tag based on their opinions. For example in France, there are breaks in otherwise highway=trunk routes just because the road is a single carriageway for a short stretch.

In short, this isn't a tag introduced to reflect a formal classification, but to reflect the high-speed design features of a road, where the highway=* key covers the formal classification already.

Cheers,
Sam.

Are there traffic signs to say it's unlawful to walk here, or is it just impractical?

foot=no is used for legal restrictions, whereas sidewalk=no + expressway=yes is more appropriate for situations where it simply wouldn't make sense to walk.

Hi, does this roundabout have a legal restriction against pedestrian access (circular no pedestrians sign)? If not then foot=no is not appropriate tagging and sidewalk=no/separate should be used.

I definitely didn't create one new myself. Seems like iD editor may have been up to something strange - I can't think how else that could've happened.

Is there really a bird hide here?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't remember back a year, maybe I made a bad decision.

OS's classification looks odd. If there's current official documentation or physical signage stating what road class or number this is then I'd side with that.

Shouldn't the tagging be amended then, rather than having painted turning lanes mapped as separate ways? According to the wiki to map a turning lane as a *_link, it should be "physically separated by an obstruction."

Is there really a legal/signed restriction against pedestrians here?

Yeah I 100% agree, it's problematic.

I can understand why bus guideway tagging was established first, as they're definitely less of a normal road, however the fact they've been prioritised as far as rendering with highway=busway still on the backburner is questionable. The issue on GitHub has been open since October 2020, nearly three years ago, as you may have seen.

It's happened numerous times that non-guided busways have been tagged as bus guideways too. I'm not sure if this still happens but it was a bigger issue before highway=busway was recognised in iD editor.

I don't really have much else to add and in fairness I'm not familiar with the team that works on OSM Carto.

Hi, can you explain the deletion of this fence? It appears to exist in imagery. Has it been removed recently?

Hi,

It doesn't seem like you fixed the bridge area here but deleted it instead. Could you not have preserved it and altered its shape to be more accurate?

The crux of it for me was that there are no right turns possible throughout the stretch. It doesn't have abutters and has numerous flyover bridges.

Perhaps motorroad=no would be a suitable additional tag, and/or additional access tags.

Having read the wiki (expressway=*) I believe it meets the necessary criteria.