Sorry for the previous message sounding unresponsive to yours, as I started writing it before you sent yours.

If you look inside the highlighted changeset area you can see a gap in US 31A, which was created by you changing the road from highway=primary to golf=cartpath. Allisona Road was also changed to a golf cartpath. You might not see them if the map has already updated for you but this can be proven by looking at the ways you edited listed at the bottom of this changeset box and viewing the history of those objects.

I remind you that, if this was unintentional, to please be more careful when making edits to roads when performing an edit on it that specifies what and what not can use it. Edits like these can reroute road traffic using nav systems with OSM data to unnecessarily long detours as golf cartpaths prohibit all road traffic besides golf carts and other authorized vehicles.

Why did you change several roads, including a lengthy section of a U.S. Highway, to golf cartpaths?

(?*)

What on Earth happened here that downgraded Brentsville Road to residential and turned it into a bridge>

Hello, I recommend using Bing Aerial Imagery in most of Northern Virginia when making edits to natural wood, as the Mapbox imagery is outdated by about 5 years while Bing is only about 2 years. Part of this forest was removed for new development at the winery, as per the Bing imagery of this location.

Hello, I just want to let you know that I've changed most of this heath to desert because heath isn't typically found in southern Nevada except for in the mountains or by water. A lot of the desert landscape in southern Nevada consists of gravel and yucca plants like Joshua trees alongside the shrubbery that falls under the heath category.

Changeset comment meant to say "Abbreviated 'US 250 Business' to 'US 250 BUS'".

Hello, it's worth noting that just because a road is not an Interstate does not mean it cannot be a motorway. Roads such as US 81 north of Salina and US 54/400 and KS 96 through Wichita meet the criteria to be motorways and should be tagged as such. I should also note that road classification usually shouldn't be based on DOT maps because OSM uses a separate classification scheme. Please change these back.

It appears there's actually a tagging preset for the crossing with signals and I was mistaken (I only looked at the tags at the bottom). Maybe it should be tagged as that with marked tags?

I think the situation for Pyramid > Sparks > Los Altos > Spanish Springs is that each one might be classified a step higher than it has to be. The things is the collector/arterial hierarchy covers more classifications of roads than OSM's road hierarchy can.

If you're fine with me doing so, I'll start a discussion on the highway classification channel of the OSM US Slack server regarding road classification like this to see what other people think. This isn't entirely a matter of whether you're from the area or not, but rather whether the changes adhere to the country's OSM road hierarchy guidelines.

By the way, I didn't mean to come off as telling you to revert your changes, no one has any power over anyone in disagreements, but I rather meant that generally people who work on road classification aren't usually fond of basing classification around the road's construction or traffic counts and creating stubs like these. But do let me know if this is something I could start a Slack discussion about. I think from there, data can be collected and written out into a highway classification proposal, like with what's been done for other states. I've heard that TheConductor has started working on one but I haven't heard about it in a while, I may have to contact him about that.

I retagged them from sidewalks to marked crossing because these are not concrete sidewalks but rather asphalt crosswalks, and the pedestrian signals are already indicated with the node at the intersection with the road. Having pedestrian signal tags added to them indicates that the crosswalks also double as pedestrian signals (which are separate things), so they should be mapped separately.

It appears to me that you're basing the road hierarchy off of functional classification, which is typically opposed when it comes to classifying roads in the US. It's what made states like Arizona, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, etc. have a messy and discontinuous road network on the map in the past. Having a bunch of discontinuous roads of such high classification running close together is also confusing to people who use OSM data for navigation. Something else I learned when classifying roads is that it can interfere with the OSM-based nav systems, leading people to take more major routes which may be longer than taking a lesser route that may be shorter.

Regardless of that, copying off functional classification defeats the purpose of OSM, which should mostly be based on community consensus or personal beliefs with strong rationales. If the map is going to be the same as DOT FC maps, we could just use those instead.

Re-addressing trunk classification, having Veterans Parkway be trunk makes sense to me as an alternative route around Reno towards Lake Tahoe or Carson City that long-distance traffic may take, but having McCarran doesn't since a big portion of it is arterial road, which is for the vast majority of cases slower than staying on the freeway. Pyramid Way doesn't make sense to me either because, while it is the main road through the area, it is still a road to nowhere beyond the Reno city limits that is only useful for local traffic or the minority of people driving up to Pyramid Lake. It also does not connect at both ends to any other major highways that would be needed for driving between two major cities. The primary classification's main purpose is for roads like these; major roads that do not meet standard trunk criteria. Having it tagged as trunk would indicate that it is as important as I-80, US 395, NV 439, and any other road used to get between major cities or things like airports and seaports.

As for my reasoning in the classification in NRA roads, I believe that the most significant roads through the parks that can alternatively be used for getting between populated places make sense as primary. Most of the roads through Lake Mead NRA can be used as a non-freeway route between Mesquite/Moapa and Henderson/Boulder City, while Kyle Canyon Road is the main road between Las Vegas and Spring Mountains NRA, not just the small community. If the SMNRA did not exist and Mount Charleston wasn't a resort town, then it make sense for this road to be secondary, perhaps even tertiary.

I'm not sure why US 95 ALT through the Yerington area would be controversial though, since it is the fastest route between Las Vegas and Reno/Carson.

If you aren't entirely sure about the new road class scheme in Reno, I highly suggest you revert Pyramid back to primary and the new primaries back to secondary just for the time being so that a thorough discussion with other users regarding them can be had. I'd like to note, however, that I am on board with upgrading collectors/minor arterials to tertiary/secondary, as that is what I have been doing for the area I currently live in and in Las Vegas.

I don't think any of these roads should have been upgraded, especially after it was agreed upon that trunk was for roads like US 95, US 50, etc. Pyramid Way only leads to subdivisions of Reno, no other cities of similar importance. Having disconnected/dead-end trunk roads contradicts everything we worked on in Nevada.

As for the primary roads: Sparks Boulevard probably makes sense as primary, I'm too sure about Sun Valley Boulevard, and as for Vista Boulevard- definitely not if it's going to parallel Sparks Boulevard. It doesn't really go anywhere besides some Sparks sprawl.

I think there should be a discussion about this on the highway classification OSM US Slack channel.

Please don't map roads on top of other existing roads to reclassify them, and please do not change very short segments of roads motorways just because there's an interchange.

I think that bus guideway tagging still makes more sense than monorail, even if the latter is used more widely and if the bus guideway is slightly incorrect. Though the viaducts appear as monorail tracks from certain perspectives, these tracks are not rails but rather a system of guideways for small people-mover cabs built on truck chassis, almost forming a freeway-like system, whereas a monorail is a cab/train along a single rail and is not car-like. Truthfully there are no buses riding along this system (however the autonomous cabs somewhat resemble small buses), but there also are no monorail trains riding along it either.

Even though it doesn't fully fit the definition of a bus guideway, I think it's much closer to that than a monorail which is usually a train. If there are any other systems like this in the US, I definitely think those should also be tagged as bus guideways. Just my opinion, though.

Please don't downgrade trunk routes like this back to primary. Controversial road changes like these should be discussed first.

How so?

Hello again, I'm just going to let you know that I have started a discussion regarding nature reserve vs. park classification in the OSM US Slack server. Here is the link to the discussion: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1662580658937219

Please do not leave blank changeset comments, instead describe what changes you are making, it's helpful to other users.