Drone video here: https://youtu.be/hS4LVn_0BgM

There is a relation representing High Priority Corridor 5 (I-73&74) already. That should be enough.

Why did you delete the proposed Portsmouth Bypass? This road is now being built. I have seen it. If you are so accustomed to editing in Ethiopia that you write "Ethiopia" as the summary for every changeset, I have little confidence in the credibility of your edit(s) in Ohio.

There are no "Future I-73" signs in Ohio. There won't be any time soon, if ever. The State of Ohio hasn't had any interest in building I-73 in about twenty years. Therefore, adding "FUT I-73" to all the ref tags along the route is not appropriate. (Furthermore, it was not planned to go through downtown Columbus or Portsmouth as your edits indicate.)

There are no "Future I-73" signs in Ohio. There won't be any time soon, if ever. The State of Ohio hasn't had any interest in building I-73 in about twenty years. Therefore, adding "FUT I-73" to all the ref tags along the route is not appropriate. (Furthermore, it was not planned to go through downtown Columbus or Portsmouth as your edits indicate.)

There are no "Future I-73" signs in Ohio. There won't be any time soon, if ever. The State of Ohio hasn't had any interest in building I-73 in about twenty years. Therefore, adding "FUT I-73" to all the ref tags along the route is not appropriate. (Furthermore, it was not planned to go through downtown Columbus or Portsmouth as your edits indicate.)

There are no "Future I-73" signs in Ohio. There won't be any time soon, if ever. The State of Ohio hasn't had any interest in building I-73 in about twenty years. Therefore, adding "FUT I-73" to all the ref tags along the route is not appropriate. (Furthermore, it was not planned to go through downtown Columbus or Portsmouth as your edits indicate.)

There are no "Future I-73" signs in Ohio. There won't be any time soon, if ever. The State of Ohio hasn't had any interest in building I-73 in about twenty years. Therefore, adding "FUT I-73" to all the ref tags along the route is not appropriate. (Furthermore, it was not planned to go through downtown Columbus or Portsmouth as your edits indicate.)

I strongly disagree with classifying large portions of US 40 in Ohio as "trunk". Except for a few very short segments, it is not a limited-access (expressway) facility. Nor is it a particularly important long-distance roadway, as it is entirely redundant to I-70. I would prefer to see the "trunk" classification used only on expressways, or on corridors that have many expressway segments or represent a major highway link that complements the freeway network.