Typo: preserve*

Hi,

However you split the ways here, it didn't carry over the relations. Do you remember what you did?

I would support that, but there are a couple concerns that I'd want addressed first. motorway=yes is currently used to mean motorway-like access restrictions, not physical characteristics. So, there would need to be a plan/proposal to migrate the existing data using this tag to some other key. The original proposal for motorway=yes actually was what we're talking about: osm.wiki/Proposal:Motorway_indication

The other thing is whether we should use motorway=* at all, or if there is some other key that would be better. I can't think of a better one at the moment; I think the proposal I linked above looks quite good. Of course, if we pick a key that isn't used now, we won't have to go through the process of moving the existing motorway=yes data.

TIGER tags are not meant to be used by consumers, while missing building footprints and inaccurate lane tags are outright deficiencies in the data. refs on the other hand are widely used and are not deficiencies.

I actually would support dropping refs from ways where there is a relation, but I would want to see this voted on by the community first. Prominent data consumers should also have a chance to switch over first. Either way, the proposal should be for switching from the current situation, which is tagging both on the way and the relation.

For each edit I have done so far, I considered each section and consulted the way history to make sure that the ref previously existed and was only removed because there was a route relation.

As for ground truth, I would say that the situation for ref=* is similar to that of name=*. In both cases, signage is going to be intermittent at times.

Tagging both the route relation and the ways is the de facto standard; this is how most of the map is done. If we want to remove refs from ways, that should be discussed first. It is not only a single renderer that wants ref on the ways; many consumers would expect to find these tags.

Yes, but this tag is not recognized by anyone and is kind of a trolltag (see osm.wiki/Trolltag). Data consumers are going to look at the highway=* value and think "okay, so this is a freeway at the topmost importance level". At that point, if they do not pay attention to highway:motorway=*, they will still treat the road like it is in the topmost importance level, even if it is not.

Hello,

It looks like you moved US 36 from ref to name here. Please don't do that

Hello,

I recognize that this change happened a long time ago, but please do not set refs like "IL 48" in the name tag.

Hello,

Here, it looks like you duplicated I-290 while trying to map the lane merging in. Since there is only paint dividing this lane from the main part of the road, a separate way shouldn't be used anyway. But if you did, it should be a highway=motorway_link and lanes=1, while you had highway=motorway and lanes=5.

Hello,

Currently, it is standard to have the ref on both the way and the relation. Not all data consumers honor the relation (notably openstreetmap-carto), so please don't remove refs from roads for this reason. There is a section that talks about this on the wiki page: ref=*#Examples_on_ways

Under the 2021 classification guidelines, motorway does indicate that a road is in the topmost level of importance. And motorway=yes, as it is currently defined on the wiki, is talking about access restrictions, so it is not the right tag here. The closest thing is expressway=yes+access_control=full, but a better tag should probably be developed at some point.

Under the 2021 classification guidelines, motorway does indicate that a road is in the topmost level of importance. Trunks are also at this same level of importance, and when you look at these two classes together, they should form an interconnected network connecting large cities.

If we want to show that it is controlled access, we can use access_control=full

Hmm, I don't know, I think I would support highway=primary+expressway=yes here. The segment is fairly short, and it doesn't seem like the freeway section is more important than the non-freeway section. So, I think they should be at the same classification level.

Hi,

I would not start changing tags until the proposal has been voted on. Especially since as it stands, I think that the proposal would not pass.

Instead, for a case like this, I would suggest these tags:

- highway=primary
- expressway=yes
- access_control=full

expressway=yes alone wouldn't indicate that it is a full freeway, but I think adding access_control=full would do this well. highway=motorway shouldn't be applied here because this route doesn't hold national importance.

See discussion on changeset/150066960

Currently, it is standard to have the ref on both the way and the relation. Not all data consumers honor the relation (notably openstreetmap-carto), so please don't remove refs from roads for this reason. There is a section that talks about this on the wiki page: ref=*#Examples_on_ways

Hi,

Why did you remove ref="IL 137" from the ways here?

I don't believe I made a mistake; that section is properly tagged as leisure=nature_reserve. The data just isn't complete, so a multipolygon can be created as you mentioned and then the leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area can be moved to that.

Hilltop Hanover Farm is already mapped as a landuse=farmyard subarea. I'm not familiar with farm tagging so I don't know if that's the usual way to do it.