Hello. I think this changeset and a couple others around this area overcomplicate/confuse some road classification criteria. Usually, it is fine for motorways to meet pedestrian crossings when they terminate at an at-grade intersection, especially when that intersection is a major one that indicates the end of the freeway. The only cases in which it is better to terminate the motorway at the interchange instead of the intersection is when the interchange is what indicates the end of the freeway, such as if the highway transitions into another highway or road that is not intended to be a freeway, like the Airport Connector or after passing through the terminals becomes Paradise Road or how the interchange east of the Hoover Dam marks the end of the bypass to become the original alignment of US 93, and there are no signs or signalized intersections which would better indicate that the freeway has ended. Additionally, regarding median breaks—these authorized access-only crossovers are essentially on every single divided highway, to allow emergency and maintenance vehicles to make safe immediate U-turns or for traffic to be switched over if urgently needed. It's very common for motorways to have intersections with various track and service roads that only authorized vehicles can use, and even sometimes even very minor publicly-accessible roads, usually unpaved ones.

As for Route 173, and the implication it should be trunk to eliminate a dangling spur, that is the reason I had downgraded it from trunk to primary in the past, as the freeway section of the 93 Business loop is only tagged at a motorway for its physical characteristic rather than its importance, and would be a primary road itself if it weren't built up to freeway standards between I 11 and VM Drive. In reality, 173 is only used to connect traffic between US 95 and I 11 into Boulder City, and is more of a local access road than a major long-haul highway like 95 or I 11.

Now regarding the Railroad Pass Casino Road—despite its freeway connection, it isn't necessarily used for getting between the two motorways (which is what 173 does further east) and doesn't serve any other secondary (or higher) tagged roads, but is rather only used for accessing one other tertiary road (Dawson Ave) and the commercial/industrial development right here at the interchange. In more rural areas like this, it will be more common and expected to have roads that connect to Interstates be tagged as tertiary and even unclassified/residential roads.

It's may sound trivial, but I tagged it to as primary to match the rest of the road since this is the last ramp to intersect Lake Mead Parkway before it merges with the Beltway. This is the same logic used for the other side of the road but in reverse (where Lake Mead Parkway meets the I 11 N to 564 E ramp). Technically, traffic going from west 564 to I 11 south isn't entering a short freeway before turning onto a completely different highway, but traffic that goes straight does, as that's a mainline highway segment (of Lake Mead Parkway/564) that directly merges with another freeway with no actual ramps.

Bit of a false alarm. I apologize for jumping to conclusions here—I put two and two together since you were the last one to edit the relation and I definitely recalled there being a node at some point prior to that, and you had additionally re-created the node, which lacked the original GNIS import data and is often an indication of delete-and-remap. I just did some investigating with OSMCha and found out that the label was actually merged with the Goodsprings boundary by another user back in April, and this change didn't modify the relation like your edits (or anyone else's beforehand) so it wasn't easily traceable because it only modified the old node and the current boundary. Luckily, I was able to restore the old one without having to do a complicated revert or interfering with your changes. Sorry for the mix up.

Hello, why was the node for Goodsprings merged with the boundary? This completely removes the label from appearing on the map.

Hello, what was the reasoning for deleting and re-mapping place nodes, such as the Goodsprings node (node/12983464131)? Every object in OSM has edit history stored in it. Adding '/history' to the end of a way, node, or relation ID will show every edit that anyone has ever made to it, and a lot of these history is important, specifically for major objects like place nodes, so that old versions can be compared and edits, including those that reflect real world updates, can be better tracked. Generally, it is best practice to try to keep as much as you can. There will be many instances you need to simply delete and object and re-map it, but if something can be moved or have its tags changed, especially if it's a significant object like a place node, it's best to not delete it.

Thank you, I appreciate your response!

Hello, I'll admit that the highway classification page for Virginia is dated in that it implies the CBBT should be a motorway, but I would say it would make more sense not to tag it as one not just because of the undivided sections or RIROs, but rather because on either end of it, it's not a motorway, effectively making this just a long mostly-uninterrupted section of the Route 13 trunk expressway.

I upgraded it to secondary since it is definitely a wider, busier, and certainly a higher-priority route—granted it carries a bus route, has more access to amenities like schools, a park, and a church, and intersects two primary roads plus another secondary route in the southern end.

Now, that I think about it, I'm more on the fence. Comparing it to obviously more important secondary roads in the valley or Desert Inn or Pecos it's probably a tertiary road, but for the area it's located in, it's definitely an important road. However, it might not be too different from your run-of-the-mill grid tertiary collector road which will normally link to school and parks and at some point connect to other major secondary/primary roads in most cases, and Tree Line Drive may just be an high-traffic anomaly/exception. I'm not too sure, but I think that the way it is now probably makes sense.

For clarification, a freeway connection isn't required for a road to be primary—just criteria to consider—especially because Sahara Ave directly connects to many other important roadways along its route. D.I. Road and 5th Street for example pass right over I 15 with no direct interchange.

I'd have to ask again on in the server if third-party signage is enough verification for a trail name. I don't see why it wouldn't count, in this case, if they are more permanent installations rather chalk writing on rocks or the like.

If you were to use an image hosting site like https://imgbb.com/ you should be able to upload example images and link them here. You are also welcome to contribute to the discussion in the OSM US Slack server where you would be able to upload images directly rather than linking them through an image hosting site.

Hello, while on paper it makes to have a primary route connect to I 15 from the junction south of Moapa Valley, the Valley of Fire Highway is also a park road with an entry fee used only by parkgoers for most of it route, and is not used by through traffic heading between the town and the Interstate. Route 169 is the only major road in an out of Moapa Valley and this leads to another rather uncommon primary spur instance here.

Trail names generally do have to come from a government entity such as a park service, be it a city park service or the NPS. i.e. the ones who would put the trails on official maps and signpost/mark them. If we let any one individual or group informally invent the names for objects, then we blur the lines between fantasy mapping/vandalism and the on-the-ground rule and create loopholes for people to call anything what they chose to. The "widely recognized and used locally" rule (which is already subjective and contentious amongst mappers enough) would apply better if these weren't informal unsigned pathways on open public BLM lands, created, used by, and referred to by an already niche subset of individuals like local hobbyist groups such as a mountain bikers and hikers. The other issue with this logic is that, since no one entity controls the trails themselves because they are within BLM lands, any other group could theoretically come in and rename them under the basis "this is what we call them" just as well.

I hate to be the outsider to come in and mess with something you yourself are familiar with, but nobody owns anything they map or has personal control over it, especially if it's something based off a personal knowledge or a conflict of interest with a project rather than something that can be proven by anybody else with permanent signs, park maps, GIS programs, etc. You also cannot report people for simply following OSM rules that they are accustomed to following because you disagree with them.

I created a thread in the tagging channel of the OSM US Slack server (https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/) regarding these trail names, asking whether the names should be removed or moved to a different name-related key as they are unofficial. While there doesn't seem to be a single clear answer, I'm more inclined to believe that from the responses from other editors, moving the names to a key like 'mtb:name', 'loc_name', 'nickname', 'alt_name', or removing the names wholly is more applicable than leaving them under the standard 'name' key.

Please do not map features that do not exist like you have done with supposed airport expansions in Nevada and Arizona. I have reverted these edits.

Hello, Northshore Road should not be a primary road. Some years ago, I upgraded it to primary for the sake of connectivity, but more recently downgraded it back to secondary as it does not serve as a primary road in the scheme of travel. It is a major roadway in a sense, being the main highway in and out of the Lake Mead NRA, but its traffic counts are extremely low for most of the road, no populated places are directly linked aside from the sporadic mobile home parks along the shoreline, and with the roads being tolled (or requiring a National Park pass), there is likely little to no traffic here using these roads as through roads for travelling between, say, Moapa Valley and Boulder City, but rather sees its usage from visitors and residents.

Hello, unless these names are official and signed (by the BLM or another overarching government entity or landowner), it is more likely than not that these names should be removed or at least moved to another tag. If these are names used exclusively by the mountain bikers of these trails, the tag 'mtb:name=*' could be used instead of the regular 'name=*' tag, which implies a more formal on-the-ground case.

Hello, Route 50 through Warrensburg should not be tagged as a motorway. This segment is very short and isn't entirely a freeway. highway=trunk and expressway=yes would be the best tag for this segment.

Lake Las Vegas Pkwy is the main road into the community, and as a secondary road, it would be the last major road that Lake Mead Pkwy intersects before it reaches the gate into the Lake Mead NRA. An argument for it to be extended to the gate could be made, like how the US Routes do before entering Yellowstone, but I figure it would make more sense for it to terminate at the last major populated place and the intersection where most traffic would be splitting off.

I had the main roads through the Lake Mead Rec Area upgraded to primary in the past but downgraded them to secondary a couple years ago since they're realistically only used by traffic local to the park rather than by through traffic.

On a more unrelated note regarding the Lake Mead Boulevard section you upgraded to primary, I think it could make sense to leave a primary spur from Nellis Blvd to Hollywood Blvd, since it's the main E-W route through Sunrise Manor and has a much higher AADT than the rest of the secondary roads in the area and supports more commercial development as well. Though, I could see a possible primary connection along Hollywood between Lake Mead and Boulder Highway in the future once the new bridge over the wash opens up and thus creates a new eastern bypass for the valley.

I would say that this is one of the rare exceptions in which a primary route can terminate with no other connections to a primary road or another highway of a higher classification, due to geographical restrictions. Traffic traveling between Reno/Sparks and Spanish Spanish Springs is funneled into Pyramid Way, which is a very crucial high-traffic commuter route, especially south of La Posada Drive. The only other major highway linking to Spanish Springs would be going 447 to 446 via Wadsworth and Nixon, but these are primarily used by traffic heading to the nearby smaller communities or local rural sprawl.

The other examples of primary spurs like these would be Lake Mead Parkway between Henderson and Lake Las Vegas—aside from the lower-traffic local roads like Galleria, the other way to reach the area would be taking Lake Mead Boulevard or Northshore Road, which are only accessible to Lake Mead NRA traffic—Route 169 to Moapa Valley (for the same reasons as Lake Mead Parkway), and Route 227 between Elko and Spring Creek, as there's no other paved highway between the two.

Hello, when adding road names, please be sure to use the road name's full suffix (e.g. 'Boulevard' instead of 'BLVD') per OSM's standardization guidelines. Thanks!

I think it should be fine to use a bi-directional roadway (i.e. the undivided sections of roads) as a way in a boundary relation, but in a case where the roadway splits into two one-way lines (i.e. divided by a median), I'd roughly trace a new boundary in the middle—not the median exactly, but just between the two ways—and avoid snapping that boundary to any intersecting roads or median breaks. I would also avoid snapping any landuse or natural feature multipolygons to these roads because it's convoluted enough having a way serve as both a routable highway and a boundary of an entity, not accounting for any transit or a road route relations the way is a member of.