I would say that trunk classification is not the best tag for roads like these despite their widths and traffic volumes, as they are still only local roads. In an urban scenario like this, trunk classification should be applied only to major non-freeway highways that serve as major commuter routes to suburban/exurban communities, or as thruways for non-local traffic—essentially the most important non-freeway highways. Think of the sort of roads you'd use to pass through the city or The Las Vegas Valley doesn't have too many examples of these sort of roads considering how remote and freeway-centric it is, but Route 160 out to Pahrump is a good example of a commuter highway to a major satellite town and Route 146 is a viable alternative route to the freeways for traffic traveling between places like SoCal out to Henderson/Boulder City.

Using another, albeit smaller city which has more trunk routes closer to its urban core, Carson City has a few of prime trunk route examples. US 50 in the west heads out to Sacramento—another relatively close-by metro area, US 395 in the south is more remote but links Carson City to major satellite communities like Minden and Gardnerville and eventually towards SoCal, and US 50 in the east links to Fallon—a relatively significant rural town outside of the immediate metro area. What also makes these highways prime examples of trunk roads are that they don't exclusively serve Carson City and provide thruways for long-distance travel (for example, tourists in Reno can pass through CC via US 395 to Los Angeles, or trucks traveling between Sacramento and Fallon can use US 50 through the city). Las Vegas Boulevard, while a major, high-capacity, and famous road in its own regard, is still effectively only a business route for locals and tourists, rather than being a major inter-regional highway like the previous examples.

My reasoning for going from motorway to primary rather than going through a sort of classification gradient would be that motorway classification is based off physical characteristics while tertiary, secondary, primary, and trunk are based off importance as a road. This means that a motorway could theoretically have the importance of a tertiary or primary road but is tagged as a motorway as it has freeway characteristics (a high speed limit, interchanges/overpasses, spurs off of another motorway, etc). When the freeway ends and becomes any sort of surface road, be it a neighborhood street, suburban thoroughfare, or an expressway, the classification should be tagged based on how traffic is using it, what destinations it links to, how it serves relative to other roadways, etc., and other tags can be used to describe the physical construction, such as expressway=* and access_control=*.

While this little expressway-like stub of Lake Mead Parkway may see more traffic than the rest of the road to the east, I would have to assume this number is only trivial as the traffic would be going to and from Eastgate Road, which is a relatively minor road itself and not worth in its own merits being linked by a trunk route.

Hello, expressways should not be exclusively tagged as trunk, especially short sections such as these. The expressway characteristics of this road can be indicated with the expressway=yes tag.

I would say that, in this case, the names could stay with name:signed=no added as a tag.

Hello, what is your reasoning for downgrading Route 25 from a secondary road to a residential road?

Which map or map layer in particular did you find these names on? Personally I would say yes to keeping the names alongside adding the tag if they appear on a map like the OpenWeb map because this would indicate that they are official road names.

I've always defaulted to the Sentinel imagery for whatever reason, but Copernicus looks just as fine. Maybe a little less resolution, but it should still come in handy for seeing the construction status of landuse areas and roads.

On roadways, the ref key should be used for official signed highway number designations, like CC 215 or NV 613. If these are signposted on the ground as names such as 'Alley A', they could be to the name key. If not, since these would be officially unnamed roads, it may be best to leave them unnamed, which would be fine since all the buildings in this complex are addressed to Carriage Hill Drive.

I will add on that roads aren't usually classified based particularly on their speed limits or drivers ignoring the speed limit, but rather a connectivity factor, primarily, and these justifications will normally be documented on a state-by-state basis as a result of community consensus. Thank you much for your understanding.

You also provide osm.wiki/Rhode_Island/Highway_classification as a source for your edits, so I have to ask, what exact piece of information within the article are you basing these changes on?

You got me, let's tag the rest of the roadways on Aquidneck Island to trunk while we're at it, just because the page doesn't say not to.

It should be assumed that the trunk route begins/end where the route transitions into another of the same importance because roads are classified based on importance. The trunk route that links Newport to Fall River is described on the Wiki page as 'RI-114 / RI-24 / MA-24'. This means that it should follow Route 114 up to Route 24. You could make an argument that that's vague, as it could mean any section of Route 114, but the roads you tagged as trunk do not link Fall River and Newport. They are not part of the intended trunk route.

You keep saying that these edits are based on your 'survey' but that could mean anything, and doesn't provide a real explanation for why you are making these edits.

Where's it say in the page that this section should be a dead-end trunk route?

OpenWeb's current imagery is from late January, so current road construction statuses should be taken with a grain of salt as time goes on (however, if I'm recognizing OpenWeb's imagery update pattern correctly, new late May/early June imagery should be available very soon). Sentinel-2 satellite imagery (https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser), albeit very low-res, shows this section has been since paved over.

As for the track roads, if they've been graded over, the road that was originally there no longer exists. In the real world, you would need to trespass into a construction site and possible traverse a steep incline onto a new road foundation (which would physically remove an intersection) to travel along these roads. And since the under-construction roads, when built, will most definitely have curbs, possibly sidewalks and landscaping along the side, physical access is further removed and so is the trace of the old road, and it would be unnecessary to intersect the under-construction roads with these sort of informal dirt roads.

I didn't add any new roads in this changeset, just changed the classification of some of them as well as deleted old track roads that have been graded over.

This road isn't a link though, it's a small frontage road providing access to a few houses. Cars are not using it by getting off Route 114 and then re-entering it. Side streets also are not classified based off the main roads they spur off of, because by that logic, Corys Lane should be trunk, Freeborn Street should be primary, etc., but they are residential streets.

The short section of Route 114 you tagged as a motorway is not a link either, it simply splits at the terminus of an actual motorway, which is Route 24. Cars driving down 114 are not briefly entering a quarter-mile long freeway, then exiting off onto a different road because both the primary and trunk sections are part of the same highway.

Hello and thank you for adding these new streets here! For future reference, the best classification for small neighborhood streets like these would be residential road rather than tertiary and secondary roads, which are usually for larger, busier major roadways. Thanks!

Do you have an explanation for why this is correct aside from a supposed firsthand survey, particularly why a small side street should be tagged as primary and a small stretch of Route 114 should be tagged the same as Route 24?

How would you being local and surveying it make it correct that a random little narrow side street is a primary road, and that an unrelated short section of highway is part of a different mainline freeway? There are universal guidelines to follow for highway classification, and these also wouldn't even meet the Rhode Island state-specific highway classification guidelines.

Hello, service roads and driveways such as the road leading to the Indian Hills Apartments complex should not be tagged as primary links. The highway link tags are for unnamed roadways like exit ramps, slip lanes, or median crossovers.
Additionally, the 'destination' value should only be used for destinations that are officially posted on signs, typically the roadside/overhead green signs. This is so that a GPS using OSM data could read, for example, 'follow the ramp to I 15 towards Las Vegas', and the end user can match the GPS directions with the real world signs. See here: destination=*#Destination_of_roads

I don't remember exactly since the edit was made a couple years back, but I would have to guess that it is just a relic from the tags of another way that was carried over erroneously, likely if I had copied and pasted the tags of another way. I've fixed it just now.