Hi, I noticed you moved this section up to trunk and added expressway tagging. From my understanding of our current guidance, the expressway tagging makes sense, but the trunk classification seems too high since this short stretch doesn't connect population centers. Thoughts?

Reverted in changeset id 129654976.

Hi Joe, can you explain what you were hoping to accomplish with this edit? You have designated every path on campus as bridge, and applied an incorrect name. This damages routing and map data accuracy. This edit will need to be reverted, but if you can let explain the intent I may be able to direct you to the right resources to learn about correct OSM map data tagging and editing. Thanks - Sam
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129305114

Most of the conversation is on the OSM US Slack, #highway-classification channel, or embedded in a hundred changeset comments like this one. The wiki was our attempt to consolidate some of that feedback into a single location, even though all the source commentary isn't captured. The "Kansas" error would be mine, probably typing faster than I was thinking.

Just a plug for both of you and anyone else checking the changeset, the Wiki has good documentation for Colorado now, based on the larger US discussions, and a lot of activity last year on talk-us and the US Slack. There are still open issues, of course, and there is good discussion on the Talk page which shows which trunks are more controversial than others, but that would be a good place to comment or suggest revisions. osm.wiki/Colorado/Highway_Classification

Right now the light consensus is that US-34 probably does deserve to be trunk, not because of Haigler, but because it is the main route to southern Nebraska. Depending on what nebraska mappers wanted to do, I'd think this would probably extend at least to McCook / Hwy 83. If NE mappers felt like it wasn't trunk importance, then that might make CO change as well - all in or all out, so to speak.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126673901

Hi, I see you dropped a part of Shields and Harmony to secondary, can you explain a bit more about why? For Shields, I might agree, but we are left with an odd stub of "primary" to the north, which doesn't seem right. For Harmony, I do think of it as one of the larger primary roads in Fort Collins.

Hi, a few days ago it was detected that someone had inadvertently merged this mural with the Boulder admin node, which caused the rendering problem. It was caught and reverted, but may take a few days for the rendering to catch up. I fixed the art URL in the meantime, since someone noticed it during the kerfuffle.

Hi, thanks for your help with the OSMUS task. However, I believe the two campgrounds you mapped are actually scrap yards (see the other scrap yard just a bit south) - I live in the area and I’m pretty sure there is no legitimate camping happening up there on the private property. Did you have another source of information? If not, can you please correct the tagging? Thanks, phidauex.

Hi, I don't see any evidence yet of Eagle Drive and Ibis Lane - did they just get built (as in the last month or two) or are they proposed? Can you help clarify the source? Thanks.

Hi, some of these changes don't seem realistic - for instance, I doubt that that Sewer Authority building is a park, a government office and a wastewater treatment plant. Please stop adding tag combinations like this without reading up on the tag definitions in the OSM wiki.

Hi, thanks for updating bike lane information! Near and dear to my heart. I did want to suggest a tip - for this section of Sable Blvd., you removed cycleway=lane (probably because there is no real lane, just the sharrows). In this case, however, you may want to use the tag cycleway=shared_lane which indicates that the main travel lane is designated for bikes. Most routers don't place much stock in that fact, but many do display it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117221663

Thanks for extending the 287 trunk up. 287 is gradually growing toward continuity here! I'm thinking the next step is to connect 287 through loveland and fort collins as a trunk - I don't think I-25 is a "real" bypass here. CO 14 is already trunk, and then the other major connection would be US 34 which can be upgraded. I think that would put the Fort Collins/Greeley/Loveland/Longmont area in a good position regarding trunk classification.

FYI, I'm extending the trunk status on US40 further into CO. Took it to Kremmling so far, where we need to make a decision on whether to stay on US 40 (reflects formal classifications) or send the trunk down CO 9 (reflects more recent usage patterns for thru traffic).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115655256

Hi, I see you are working on highway classifications in CO. If you would, take a moment to review the trunk proposals on the CO wiki to see what has consensus and is still up for discussion. osm.wiki/Colorado/Highway_Classification

At the risk of starting an edit war, I'd like to ask that we move some of the CO reclassification discussions to the wiki. I've added some additional comments to the trunk proposals section, and we may want to work them out there rather than reverting each others edits. osm.wiki/Colorado/Highway_Classification#Trunk_Roads

Hi, I wish you would have messaged before reverting this change - working with NM mappers we did determine this is an important route meeting the revised trunk definitions. I'm happy to accept feedback, but many of the changes you're making have already reached a level of community consensus.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115676781

Reverted in changeset/113587451
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113417576

Hi, welcome to OSM. I'm not sure if you realize this, but edits made here impact real maps that people and businesses use every day. Making fictional edits is considered vandalism and isn't appreciated. If you would like to learn how to use the map editor to improve the map, then I recommend checking out LearnOSM.org for some useful walkthroughs. In the meantime I'm going to revert the two edits you've made so far.

Thanks, I have used your synced alignments before in JOSM, they are quite helpful, and Mesa County’s imagery is very good. In this case, I’ve noticed some skew in the canyons in all the imagery sources, so the alignments I updated were to correct my own initial rough trace from trail maps (before the trail was visible in any imagery), and I aligned to Strava heat map wherever available to avoid imagery skew.

Is there somewhere you noticed that I appear to be off? Happy to go back over and see if there is anything I missed or over-corrected.

We were the ones with a baby trailer with a CO flag on it, if you saw us! Your import looked good, I just adjusted the underpass geometry a bit, extended the trail access tags to the whole segment, and added them to the route relation for the overall trail.

Good edits and thanks for updating the map!