I see now, that's good. The way refs should still probably only be CA 99 though, especially in this case where the possible Interstate designations are not really very far along.

Hi,

This probably shouldn't go in ref=*. fut_ref=* on the ways should be fine, but the ideal way to do this would be a route relation with network=US:I:Future

Also see discussion here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/planned-edit-to-re-tag-descriptive-names-in-road-route-relations-in-the-united-states/108454

Hello,

I see that you moved "New York State Route 9A" from the description=* tag to the name=* tag. For road routes, there is some amount of agreement that name=* shouldn't be used like this, since it is just a description of what is in the ref=* tag. See more here (the "Interstate 5" example): osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Hello,

Please be sure to only map turn restrictions when they are actually signed on the ground. Some of the restrictions you've created look like you just figured that cars shouldn't do that, but this is usually not enough to add a turn restriction.

Generally, in cases like the I-91/CT-159 interchange, I feel that it is better to not change the classification of the connecting road (Meadow Road in this case). The ground truth is that CT-159 is the primary road, and you have to get off onto a side street to access it. If we tag the side street as primary, this information is lost, or at least obscured. I would be more okay with giving highway=tertiary to this particular segment, but if it was really a residential street with houses on either side, I think it should stay as highway=residential.

In contrast, I am okay with tagging the side street higher if it is the beginning/end of a route of that classification. For example, this segment connecting I-84 to the primary route on CT-34 should stay as-is: way/411203807 . This is especially the case if a numbered route of that classification is signed along the ramp and side street.

I don't know if I agree with highway implying line geometry; I think it's just usually true. In this case, highway=rest_area is only supposed to be used on nodes and closed ways, so it seems kind of redundant to include area=yes. Data consumers should just refrain from using objects with tags that they don't understand, even if they have a general rule for the key (i.e. don't treat a rest area as a routable highway)

You are still responsible for the data that you upload. If you see a conflict resolver then you need to actually try to resolve the conflict instead of just overwriting good data that others uploaded.

If you want to avoid edit conflicts, then try to edit fewer things at a time and try to not take too long from the time you download the data to when you upload. In this case, you could have done one changeset per route, for example.

Hi,

Running through a town like this does not disqualify a road from being trunk. If the road should be trunk on both sides of the town (in this case US-206 on the north and NJ-54 on the south), then it should probably be trunk inside the town too, even if traffic would normally go slower.

Hi,

Overall, this looks good. I did change the end of PA-33 from trunk to motorway_link, which I think is more appropriate here. I also changed the short segment of PA-423 leading to I-380 back to secondary; in most cases I think it is better not to upgrade these kinds of short segments just because it leads to a highway, but especially so in this case because people following the primary route would continue north to the next interchange instead.

I am not from the area, so I'm not familiar with the road you upgraded from tertiary to secondary. From the tags on it, it seems like TIGER thought it is a state route; is this the case? If so, then yes, it should probably be secondary. Otherwise, I would make it secondary if it is a particularly important local or county route.

The one last thing is please try to keep your changesets contained to one area. In this case, you edited a road in Maine in addition to the main edits in Pennsylvania. If you made the Maine edit a separate changeset, it would have made the bounding box much smaller and wouldn't grab the attention of people monitoring recent changesets as much.

Hi,

What was your motivation for using highway=living_street for the streets in Delilah Terrace?: way/28664205

From aerial imagery at least, these look like pretty normal residential streets.

Hi,

Looks like you created this node which doesn't look quite right: node/10827927927

Were you getting this data from some other source?

No worries, thanks for understanding. There are occasional times where it is deemed more okay to add a restriction even when there isn't a sign. For example, if traffic is given a slip road to use, some would add a restriction saying that traffic can't use the main intersection. This is still somewhat controversial though.

Basically, if you would be in fear of getting pulled over by the police for performing the maneuver, you could consider adding a turn restriction. In these cases though, you were adding no U-turn restrictions at most road junctions, where you probably could make a U-turn without incident.

In any case, you should add the tag implicit=yes to the relation if there isn't a sign saying that you can't do the action.

Hi,

It appears that you have created no U-turn restrictions in places where you simply think that people should not be performing U-turns. This isn't what turn restrictions are supposed to be used for; you should generally only add no U-turn restrictions if there is a no U-turn sign. The same goes for other types of restrictions, but no U-turn restrictions in particular are commonly misused like this.

In this case, this road had been tagged with ref="IL 137" for 13 years before you removed it. The other roads that I touched were similar; I am only restoring these to how they had been for a long time. What percentage of state highways do you think have not been tagged like this?

And again, I mentioned OSM carto because it is probably the most well known consumer that uses way refs instead of route relations. That being said, there are likely many other consumers that look for way refs too. With how significant of a tag this is, we could be affecting a lot of people by removing the data.

As for my process in restoring the way refs, it wasn't only based on way history. For each route, I only touched ways that were in the corresponding route relation, and I also consulted Wikipedia to determine if the path that it followed is current.

Hi,

Even if the trail was created "illegally and in secret", it should not be removed from the map. Legality only might affect the access value. That being said, this trail is on public land, so I'm not sure that `access=private` or `access=no` is appropriate.

The trail should only be removed if, as you are now saying, it truly does not exist at all. I will see if I can survey it sometime soon to verify that this is the case.

Yes, I removed the access restrictions because this is a public park and a public street. If parking is not allowed on the street, then map that.

Hello,

Even if the trail was completely on private property, deleting it from the map is not allowed. You can read about this here: osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

So either way, the trail should be in the map, as long as it exists. The question is what the access value should be. The trail is on public land, so it seems to me like access should not be `private` or `no`.

All of them I think, but I was mainly concerned with the road route relations. I fixed it already though

Typo: preserve*