As mentioned, RIROs and full intersections are incompatible with motorway, so at the very least, the segments of the Taconic that have those can not be motorway. If you want to make an argument to make a fully controlled access segment motorway, that is one thing, but even then, the overall quality of the road is somewhat below a typical motorway. highway=trunk + expressway=yes is a fair combination in this case.

The Taconic is limited access, not fully controlled access. Therefore it is not fully a motorway. An argument can be made to make certain controlled access segments of it a motorway, like is currently done at the southern and northern ends, but you set the whole thing as motorway even through full intersections.

Please note that all of the trunk segments have expressway=yes, which makes trunk an adequate classification in this case.

The parkways do not all have RIROs, especially not ones as blatant as on Ocean Parkway and the Taconic. Your changesets have set multiple roads as motorway straight through full intersections (see osm.org/#map=19/41.180799/-73.758318 osm.org/#map=18/41.974509/-73.749359), which is completely unacceptable for a motorway. Additionally, it is well agreed upon that in the US, RIROs are not allowed on motorways (expressway=*#How_to_decide). expressway=yes is what distinguishes a surface road from an expressway in cases where a road doesn't qualify for highway=motorway.

Notably, I have the Saw Mill as a trunk expressway from the Cross County all the way to the northern end, since even in the controlled access segments, the design is deficient compared to the other nearby motorways (e.g. Thruway, Sprain, Hutch). Also, I set Mosholu Parkway to a primary expressway because based on the way it is used (using local knowledge), it is not important enough to be at the trunk/motorway level.

Otherwise, you made the BRP a motorway from the Sprain to Scarsdale Road, which I disagree with given local knowledge of how that road is to drive on. Just because it is controlled access for a short period of time doesn't mean that it is motorway quality.

I reviewed each of these changesets by hand before reverting, so please let me know which ones are proper in your eyes and I will be happy to discuss further.

See the note on the I-787 ways for the rationale there. As for NY-43, it is a route unto itself, and the signage on the ground seems more like the ramps don't start until the road diverges.

Hi,

Unfortunately, I've had to revert this changeset and several other similar ones that you've made in the area lately. Ocean Parkway is definitely not a motorway, as it has uncontrolled property access in many places. In addition, it is not important enough to be at the trunk/motorway level.

Please see changeset/169939717 for more details and to discuss any of these changes further.

Reverted; see changeset/169746353 for discussion

Reverted in 169940604. The Taconic is limited access, with partial controlled access. Motorway requires full controlled access, i.e. no intersections including RIROs. Currently I have the southern cutoff at US-6 because the road narrows significantly at this point and the RIROs begin shortly north of here.

Note that expressway=yes is used here on the trunk segments, which denotes the limited access nature of the road.

The primary issues with these was the overuse of motorway (e.g. setting all of Ocean Parkway to motorway), and removing `_link` from some highway ramps. Please discuss here if you disagree with any of these reverts.

The following changesets were reverted in this changeset:
169931511
169931494
169931358
169931597
169931278
169931257
169887702
169839373
169838893
169838539
169795549
169802698
169826615
169748025
169747422
169747403
169747362
169747329
169740359
169739861
169698980
169698856
169698787
169687763

I was changing NY-119 to primary, so I selected all members in that relation and changed them together. When checking my work, I noticed that this part had not been changed, so I looked at it and saw that it wasn't part of any relations.

Do you download data from Overpass? Otherwise if you use the normal way split function, the relations should carry over.

Same thing with way/1351485283

Hi,

Somehow the relations didn't carry over when you split this way: way/1351485284

I'll fix it; I just wanted to point it out so that you could figure out what might have been the cause.

The comment here has a typo; I meant "deletion"

Hello, and thanks for contributing.

I've reverted this change since it goes against the 2021 trunk/motorway classification guidelines, which impose additional requirements on what is allowed to be either of those classifications. In this case, the road definitely is controlled-access (i.e. a freeway), but it does not directly connect to any other trunk or motorway. As such, it is not part of the interconnected trunk/motorway network, and shouldn't be that classification. You can read more about the guidelines here: osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

The road already was and still is tagged with expressway=yes, which conveys the upgraded construction. If there are signs that explicitly say that foot and bicycle traffic is prohibited, you may tag the road with foot=no and/or bicycle=no to convey this.

Also, looking at Bing Streetside, there are signs that say "PRIVATE - KEEP OUT". The imagery date is fairly old, so can you verify that you've surveyed this and confirmed that it's now public?

Hi,

Generally, access=yes is assumed if there is no tag. While it's not wrong to add, it's probably best to only add it in borderline situations where someone might wonder if there is no public access.

Hello,

If this is private property, access=private should probably be used without any bus=* (or similar) tags.

Hello,

Please make sure that you use lowercase letters in your tags. access=Yes should be access=yes.

JOSM glitched out and uploaded before I could write a changeset comment. The comment was supposed to be "Downgrade overclassified roads".

Hello,

I am looking at the following two ways:
way/31722444
way/1176299267

In this changeset, it looks like you added the tag `toll:backward=||designated`. What did you mean by this? I would have just changed it to `toll:lanes:backward`, but it looks like there are only two lanes on this road.

Since I haven't heard back, I am going to revert this for the time being. Note that the limited access nature of the road is already reflected in expressway=yes, which is independent of the classification. I don't think that the road is as important as the other motorways or trunks in the area, which is why I think primary is appropriate.

Also note this section from the national 2021 classification guidelines: "The Trunk classification generally should not be applied to highways that are parallel to motorways, especially highways within a short distance (less than 5 miles) from the motorway."