I agree with this and your assessment of 1051594775. However, I wasn't the one who mapped these; I think they showed up here because I nudged a node or something for an unrelated edit.

Yes, I was trying to get it to render correctly on a shield but it doesn't appear that what I did worked anyway.

Whoever I had that conversation with months ago. I don't remember and I don't particularly care to look it up. But that was my first experience with state-based regulations (like Minnesota's bizarre motorway islands that cause confusion and look hideous in my opinion), and there is a LOT of variance state to state. I also found a lot of places in Minnesota's documentation that is contradictory to itself, hence why I figured it would be best to just bow out and let locals deal with it. Now I'm working on Nebraska's standards since we don't have any documentation.

Fear not, I was already instructed at length about how Minnesota does not conform to standards elsewhere in the country, reverted all of my MN edits, and promised never to touch MN again months ago. Never editing there again; too many complex and contradictory rules!

Dang, was hoping I could link different additions of the same neighborhood easier, but that obviously didn't work. Won't try that again! (That wasn't the new method I referred to earlier, though.)

I am not sure what's going on with 11964102; that wasn't one of mine. At a glance, it looks like inner and outer boundaries are overlapping; I'll fiddle with it and see if I can figure it out.

Got it!

The problem with that method is that it creates a sloppier look and makes it much more difficult to work with future edits with the added clutter and trying to separate overlapping lines. I'm trying a different technique now that should help reduce this.

My kingdom for a working error alert system for boundaries when I go to submit! Those are now fixed.

I'm not 100% sure; I haven't used the tag myself short of moving it if an intersection changed. But based on the lack of information from the wiki and what you pointed out with the start and end tags, I believe your assumption of it being old data to be correct (especially since the NDOR was renamed NDOT about five years ago). My suspicion is that there was a movement at some point to log all mileposts, but as far as I know nothing ever came of this.

Happy mapping!

Got 'em!

No idea how the layer=1 thing happened; I don't think that was me but I fixed it anyway. Kind of funny though, just imagining the baseball field floating there.

You need to stop adding county roads as highway refs. Nebraska does not have a county highway system and these are not highways but just road names. Please go back through and remove all that you have added. Thank you!

They are signed! Nebraska started signing these about 10 years ago; far as I know it's the only state to have an alt Interstate system to this degree. Sometimes it is just the regular Interstate shield with an ALT banner over it, but in many cases they actually have special signs and sometimes it's even better signed than the actual route. There are even a few cases (N 27th St in Lincoln, the old Matzke Hwy near Seward) where it doesn't even follow a state or US Route.

I wouldn't say never; there are legitimate reasons, as mentioned in the OSM guidelines. But yeah, agreed on this one based on OSM standards instead of actual road quality/usage.

I should also point out that I am the one who originally drew N-10 onto this map a few years back, and had it as trunk to US 30, and I totally get what you're saying. But I'm more inclined to go with what the actual engineers and OSM say than personal preference.

I'm not following the state highways being primary, based on OSM's standards and the amount of traffic they carry, especially because they don't connect major towns. I can see an argument for US 183, as even though it is a very low traffic road (fun fact: it was the last US Route to get paved), it is still a US Route.

A trunk road should really be longer than four miles, though, and definitely not north of US 30 when it drops to two lane. I could see marking it as primary to 56th, but really, is it any different than any other four lane city road?

Highway 10 should not be a trunk road. Half of it is only a two-lane highway, and it does not serve the function of a trunk road by OSM's definition. NDOT currently has it marked as the equivalent of a secondary road. Please revert this road. As far as I can tell, the rest looks good. Thank you, and keep editing!

So how does one designate the difference between the signage and the official classification? I know with names one can use name and alt_name, but to my knowledge there is no alt_ref tag.

If you look to the north in Nebraska, I've been working on a similar project and that may help you find examples. Gravel roads that are minor arterials can be marked as tertiary roads. I often look at national classification maps and compare that to OSM's standards in order to make my decisions. KDOT may have a map library you can peruse for reference material.

The OSM wiki is also a great place to bone up on the different types of roads and how they are used, as well as naming conventions (I saw someone else had commented on that on one of your edits).

Keep up the good work, and thanks for being willing to learn!

Rural roads are marked as minor/unclassified, not tertiary. Please fix this error.

Rural roads are marked as minor/unclassified, not tertiary. Please fix this error.

Rural roads are marked as minor/unclassified, not tertiary. Please fix this error.