Hi Phil,
Road classification in OSM can be deceptively tricky - the trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified system is built around the U.K. road network, and unfortunately it tends to line up awkwardly with U.S. roads which use something more like a major/minor highway/arterial/collector kind of system.

A tertiary road should have some kind of navigational importance, albeit a minor one. If I had to point to some of the roads I am most confident around here being labelled tertiary, roads like Mesa Park, Las Brisas, Kings Row, Wedekind, Neil Rd. around Peckham come to mind. Unclassified is a better choice for roads in commercial or industrial districts that provide access to properties, but aren't used for through navigation.

If you have any questions at all about this topic, don't hesitate at all to contact me. Thanks for the work you have been doing as well, it's rare to have contributors in the U.S. with the attention to detail you're showing.

Bradley

Hi THolt, I noticed that this changeset deleted a part of US 31/41/431 (James Robertson Pkwy/Main St) where it bridges over the Cumberland River, was this intentional?

Nope, but it should be fixed. Thanks for pointing it out!

Hi jfire, this changeset doesn't follow the import guidelines that you listed. I took the same process having been done in the Shasta ntl. forest as precedent and didn't research the process enough. If it needs to be reverted, I should be able to step through that process when I have some free time in the next week or so. There's not a lot of editing activity in this area so there shouldn't be too much complication in reverting this set.

On a side note, I'm not sure on what grounds tagging the entire administrative boundary as landuse=forest is justified. There is a difference between "this area is subject to administration by national forest law" and "this area is actively being used for forestry purposes". I'll probably start a discussion on talk-us about this in a few days to see what peoples thoughts are.

Something broke :( Might need to revert this one...