you haven't answered the question.

by what measure is your classification system consistent?

so you're going to follow IDOT's classification, then? you've got a lot of US routes that need downgrading, then. lots of 34, 52, 6 are shown as minor arterials by IDOT.

or you're going to use street view?
compare
- US 34 east of orchard (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6831415,-88.3613472,3a,75y,273.26h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s46RDUd-Zi62Oy7mamQ3XWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
- IL 31 north of Oswego (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6905577,-88.3551076,3a,60y,11.39h,88.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqeLC1GolJYhGDE1v4kzmFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
- Orchard (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6926215,-88.3803817,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7_gAHd9LcqrgzDULQApeQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

by what measure should these three roads be classed the same? your classification is not consistent on physical characteristics, nor IDOT classification, nor us / state route status, nor local opinion.

because it literally is not the primary route between these locations. whether you want to go by usage or by physical characteristics, orchard road is the main route by which folks get north and south.

same goes for the stretch of US 34 you upgraded. east of Orchard to the river, it's a two lane road with hardly any shoulder, and only access to a handful of businesses and residential driveways; locals largely do not use it as a primary route, they use 71.

and lastly, and most importantly: there was actually local consensus on this. you drop out of nowhere to impose your statewide defaults, which you stated elsewhere could change based on local conditions, and i'm telling you there are local conditions that local mappers have agreed upon.

i'm trying to be understanding, but please revert this.

the classifications in this area is the result of discussion consensus among mappers who live and work in this area.

we don't need a blanket policy blindly applied to highways based on us / state routes.

there's a "highway-classification" channel on there where these kinds of discussions take place

not necessarily. you can't just apply a single policy to every road, you have to consider their context in the nearby highway network.

near Oswego, for instance, you have two state routes (IL 31 and IL 25) on opposite sides of the river. when you compare how they connect to other roads and their annual average daily traffic numbers, IL 31 is more important to the region than IL 25. and just west of there, Orchard Road (a county route) has far greater traffic and connectivity than either.

following the model of other states, part of the classification effort is to identify "major population centers", not just town centers in general. not every town in the state would be important enough to warrant including in the motorway/trunk network.

some you can see on the talk page of the wiki itself:
osm.wiki/Talk:Illinois/Highway_Classification

for OSMUS Slack, you can sign up here: https://osmus.slack.com/

that page is a draft that i started in 2021. it's not intended to be prescriptive (not yet, anyway), but was an attempt at starting some discussion with the local mapping community to build consensus on a statewide standard.

the discussions never really took off, sadly. the framework of the page and class descriptions were copied from existing pages as a starting point. what little discussion has happened since then has been in favor of moving towards a "functional importance" trunk classification, rather than a "physical characteristics" one. for motorway characteristics, we have `expressway=yes`.

i'm not necessarily saying you're wrong. 47 doesn't always feel very "trunky" in every spot, but it does connect a couple of motorways and serves a massive amount of traffic. relative to the surrounding area, it has a much higher functional importance than other primary roads.

by all means, share your opinion on the wiki talk page, on the OSMUS Slack, or on the OSM Community boards. i would love to move closer to a real consensus of local mappers.

what exactly are the "trunk il standards" you're referencing?

there's been very little discussion on the wiki (osm.wiki/Illinois/Highway_Classification), and not as much IL-specific chatter on the OSMUS Slack, but it seemed like folks wanted to consider trunk from a connectivity standpoint over any physical attributes.

done!

you're absolutely right, that wasn't intended. i must have been trying to remove tags from the member ways and selected all members by mistake. it will be corrected shortly, if it hasn't been already.

Hi there! It looks like you may have accidentally modified Channahon's administrative boundary. Please be more careful in the future.

The iD editor has options to turn boundary features off so that you can avoid modifying them by accident, I would encourage you to use that setting.

can you please be a little more careful when you're editing near administrative boundaries? your landuse edits modified a county and a city boundary.

the iD editor has the option of completely turning off administrative boundaries to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

ha! i admittedly didn't look at member way tags much beyond a few removals of TIGER stuff. looks like the congo's been there since changeset/115121457

did i hit a timezone boundary or something?

wait, this relation probably doesn't even need to exist. the name is "unincorporated"...

aw, shoot. i thought i was being super careful, but some of these boundaries are a mess. i will take a look at it right now, thanks for the notice!

thank you for adding landuse areas to the map! please take more care, however, that you do not glue features to administrative boundaries. in the iD editor, you can turn boundary features off entirely to avoid doing this in the future.

it wasn't really a "mistake", the ref is for the route relation, not the roads. but i get it, some legacy renderers still need the ref tag on the member ways for shields. i was being a bit cavalier in clearing ref tags

How does it seem more major? The way area residents and commuters use this road is pretty consistent with a collector road.

IDOT's classification scheme is a good starting point, but it does not map directly to OSM tags.

Your overpass link isn't working. But yes, it's true that there are not many tertiary state routes. I have to repeat, though, that being a state route does not *make* a road a higher classification. There's certainly some correlation there, but a road's classification should be considered apart from any numbered route it may participate in.

Highway classification is about a road's functional importance in the broader network, not its legal status, jurisdiction, or physical characteristics. This road, in this area, is simply not that important.