There isn’t much riding on the classification of these downtown streets other than a typical rendered map being able to communicate that 299 connects to 44. At some zoom levels, a renderer other than osm-carto could quite reasonably include trunk roads but omit primary roads. That’s a stylistic decision OSM should be able to accommodate; to assume otherwise is to cater to osm-carto specifically.

Even if forming a continuous path of trunk roads along Eureka/Market and Shasta/Tehama looks arbitrary when zoomed way into the downtown area, I think it’s a reasonable tradeoff compared to leaving a gap within the city limits at a lower zoom level.

The questions about route membership or motorist preference are just starting points for discussion, not determining factors, and they only really matter at a county or state scale, not this hyperlocally. A router might prefer Market over California due to the road classification, but traffic conditions would probably have a bigger impact anyways.

(Typo: I meant it makes a lot of sense to give this segment of Highway **152** the same level of prominence as the segment east of Highway 156.)

Thank you for your attention to this highway. It makes a lot of sense to give this segment of Highway 156 the same level of prominence as the segment east of Highway 156. In case you haven’t seen it yet, several of us California mappers are collaborating on a standard for determining which highways to classify as highway=trunk:

osm.wiki/California/Draft_Highway_Classification_Guidelines#Trunk

Fortunately, your change seems to be consistent with this draft. Regardless, I encourage you to review the draft and provide feedback on it. As you upgrade roads to highway=trunk based to ensure connectivity, please consider explicitly tagging any expressway segments with expressway=yes for additional clarity. Thanks again!

This is good feedback. In the passage that you quoted from the guidelines, the operative word is “usually”. It’s referring to the character of the overall road from end to end as a means to keep every long-distance highway from being upgraded to trunk, but it isn’t intended to be a rubric for classifying, say, a block-long stretch of road. I attempted to clarify this point (for consistency with the national guidelines) in osm.wiki/Special:Diff/2251291 , though it’s frustrating that “road” and “highway” are such overloaded terms.

I only inquired about the status of 299 as an aside, because I thought you were claiming that 299 ends more or less at the city limits, which would’ve required correcting the ref tag and route relation. In California, state routes only consist of state highways (which are owned by the state). Unless Eureka Way and Market Street have been relinquished to Redding or Shasta County, 299 still goes through Redding uninterrupted, even if no one prefers to refer to it as 299.

Anyways, the point I was trying to make is that, according to the new guidelines, highway=trunk doesn’t necessarily mean “highway” any more than highway=primary or highway=secondary does. I don’t think anyone is claiming Eureka Way or Market Street to be a highway in the sense of a high-speed or limited-access highway. Perhaps that could be made clearer in the documentation?

Has the section of 299 within the city limits been relinquished to the city? Lately the state has relinquished a number of state highways within city limits, but I can’t find any mention of that happening to 299 in the legislative record. Have they removed the 299 shields along Eureka Way or something?

Besides, highway classification isn’t tied to route membership, and a major reason the community is bothering with this reclassification effort is to decouple trunk from construction quality and connect it through urban centers.

Here are some threads where the new national guidelines were discussed at length:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-May/thread.html#21018
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-May/thread.html#21099

What hasn’t been discussed on talk-us so far is the *California edition* of the new guidelines. For your benefit and Steve’s, I’d be in favor of keeping the talk-us list in the loop as we develop the rest of that edition. However, there’s no way to keep at least some of the discussion from taking place on Slack, where there’s a much larger group of mappers assembled.

While there isn’t unanimous agreement everywhere about the new national guidelines, there’s clearly momentum behind them. In addition to considerable discussion on this topic on the mailing list and Slack, multiple data consumers are in the process of making changes to better accommodate the new tagging.

In particular, expressway=yes explicitly distinguishes the highways previously tagged highway=trunk under the old standard. This has freed up highway=trunk to be used in a manner more consistent with functional classification principles, which sometimes includes running trunk down surface streets downtown. That said, it’s quite reasonable to quibble over N. Market St. in Redding. This is an example of where we don’t have all the answers yet and are counting on locals like you to help us refine the guidelines.

The overall national reclassification project is documented at osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance . It’s no longer in “draft” status, having been discussed extensively in multiple places including the talk-us mailing list. An important aspect of the project is that each state gets to adapt the guidelines to local conditions while adhering to the same overarching principles. Half the states have begun this process, and a few have already completed the reclassification.

With respect to California’s guidelines, the motorway and trunk guidelines have been relatively uncontroversial until now, compared to other states. However, the documentation is still marked as a draft because we haven’t filled out the guidance for classifications below trunk, which require considerably more discussion. That said, it isn’t too late to participate in crafting these local guidelines. It’s unfortunate that you’re unable to participate on the wiki right now, but most of us participating in this process are subscribers to the talk-us list, even if we happen to use Slack more heavily.

Bradley has moved ahead with the trunk reclassification process up here in part to clean up highly questionable classifications that remote mappers like Fluffy89502 implemented over the past year. (In the Bay Area, where I’ve followed suit, that resulted in returning highways like 17 to how they had been for years.) But it also included upgrading some roads to trunk based on the national guideline’s connectivity principle. Now would be the time to voice any objections to this overall national approach on the mailing list or somewhere similarly visible.

Just to be clear, I changed things back to how you had them. Whoever came by later on must’ve ignored the note about the Begin/End Freeway signs that you were aligning the classifications to.

This changeset was restored in changeset/116170303, but with additional traffic_sign nodes as justification so that hopefully it doesn’t get reverted again.

This changeset also removes a fictitious off-ramp in favor of existing turn lane tags at an at-grade intersection.

https://github.com/hotosm/tasking-manager/issues/4959 requests that the tasking manager tag the changeset with the project URL like MapRoulette does.

Here’s the tasking manager project: https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/248

changeset/115632320 fixes various errors where these paths crossed roads and streams. Did Joe’s Trail get extended south? I retagged these other paths as informal paths, assuming they aren’t part of Joe’s Trail or any other official trail. (It isn’t appropriate to map an ordinary footpath alongside railroad tracks where it would require special care or trespassing.)

Good idea, thanks!

For the record, most of the building geometries have been replaced by professionally digitized CAGIS geometries (with addresses) in changesets 115414253, 115465635, 115487649, 115490252, 115508314, 115510643, and 115511220. All that remains are around 250 tiny toolsheds and doghouses, many of which are already perfectly fine: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1eF9 .

Separately, local mappers have been manually improving building geometries in the area in changesets such as 100121624, without the need for the disruptive editing that was seen here.

Thanks for adding these floor counts and roof shapes; they make 3D renders of Loveland look a lot more recognizable. Note that the floor count should normally exclude the attic, but you can explicitly specify the attic by setting roof:levels to 1.

Ah, I hadn’t noticed that earlier appearance. In any case, this syntax is disputed in osm.wiki/Talk:Key:charge#Proposed_advanced_usage so I’ll throw my 2¢ into the talk page.

You’re the expert on key order, so I’ll defer to you on that point. 😉 Fixed in changeset/115399765.

By the way, I don’t mean a fixed price per axle; there are sections that have unrelated prices depending on the number of axles on the vehicle: node/3248852590 These signs are newer than the signs showing prices by vehicle type that I saw in Bing Streetside, so the latter may have been replaced by per-axle signs anyways.

Unfortunately, the access keys as units would be inconsistent with the differing prices per axle along other sections of the highway, which require conditional tagging. There would still need to be charge:txtag for the TxTag-specific prices too. It looks like there is precedent for keeping the prices in separate keys, so if possible, I would prefer to stick with that for prices based on the standard TxDOT signs for toll roads.

Access-as-unit was only very recently documented in osm.wiki/Special:Diff/2188260 and usage appears to be largely limited to Brazil and Malaysia, which may have very different needs around pricing than toll roads in the U.S.