Because they picked up on the highway 'type' in the construction tag. Anyways Paul, did you know that WSDOT considers what's tagged right now as a 'motorway'? http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/706FD0DF-CD12-42CD-9FEE-65545EF3F10B/0/Q14.pdf

Broke Mapquest Open routing when I did something similar on a road in the past.

highway=trunk + construction=motorway isn't correct tagging. That can break routing.

This is now all corrected in changeset/33707521

I never said that the changeset needed to be reverted. All I said was the ways themselves needed to be 'reversed' in direction. If you had selected the 2 ways in question, then hit the 'R' button in JOSM, you would have been given the option to reverse the ways. That would have fixed the 'oneway' problem and put the ways going in the correct direction.

I said to fix the problem, the ways should be 'reversed' (the 'r' button in JOSM when you have the ways selected), not a total 'revert' of the changeset, like you did in changeset/33706171.

Please be more careful when adding in dual carriageways like Dove Avenue here. When you added the 'onweay' tag here, it made the ways into an incorrect RHD country setup. The problem here is that the USA is a LHD country. Thus, the two ways should be reversed to correct this problem.

I'm just curious, but why did you extend 'East Catherine Street' in this changeset to the west of the intersection of it with PA-601 (North Center Avenue)?

Looking at the Tiger data, it shows it as part of 'West Catherine Street' instead. Anyways, it should never have been extended to the west as a 'tertiary' highway past the intersection with PA-601. It's clearly a 'residential' highway on that side of PA-601 when you look at Bing's imagery, and should have been tagged as such. Also, when you look at the street grid here in Somerset, PA, you can easily see that 'Center Avenue' is where roads with the 'East/West' names change between those cardinal directions.

Please don't trust Tiger 100% of the time for missing roads to add. If you had looked right above this 'new' road you added, you would have noticed that a road with the same name was already added into OSM several years ago in the correct place ( way/11957651 ). What you added here (I'm 99.99% sure of this), is a person's driveway. If you look at Bing's imagery, you can clearly see a major difference between the two. I'm pretty sure that the way I mentioned above (11957651) should be corrected to be a residential way, while the way you added (358264823) should be turned into a 'highway=service' + 'service=driveway'.

I'm curious, but why in this changeset did you remove the US-301 tags along US-521? They both share the same highway there. I've restored them in changeset/33546445. changeset/33546445

Alright. As I said, I was just curious about this. I did already remove the non-existent routes from the 'ref' tags.

Reverted in changeset/33351552.

Please read the history of ways (changeset comments) before believing that the Tiger data is 'correct'... Version #7 ( way/16446657/history ) clearly states that the road was realigned and that person even put in a rough alignment. Bing imagery in this area is way out-of-date. I've even personally traveled on the new alignment for that road back in 2013. So please, read history changeset comments, and check Bing imagery dates (right click on a tile and hit 'show tile info') before making changes. People on the ground might be right!

I have to agree with Dusche here. Smaller changesets that don't span the ocean would be greatly appreciated. Especially when you're trying to see if there any changes done in your local area.

If you have any questions about classifications, don't hesitate to ask me if you're not sure. I'm pretty good at this stuff. ;)

Just so you know, the 'access=yes' and 'motor_vehicle=yes' tags are both 'unnecessary' tags here. All highways by default are 'access=yes' and 'motor_vehicle=yes' and don't need to have those tags. So, in the future with iD, just completely ignore those options unless the highway really needs a 'access=private' or something similar. Same goes with the 'motor_vehicle=*' tag.

That and please don't add the quadrant routes along routes that have primary numbers like US-322 Business in State College. That can, and does confuse drivers when the routing apps mention a highway that can't be noticed 99 out of 100 times. I was along most of US 322 Business at the beginning of the month (Aug '15), and even I was hard pressed to even 'notice' a single one of the small reference signs that PennDOT uses for quadrant routes (since I know what to look for unlike 99% of the drivers in the state) as they were very well hidden. The ONLY shields noticeable where the US-322 Business ones. And that route IS THE ONLY one that should be in the ref tag since it's the only route that has the shields posted. IF you feel you MUST add the quadrant routes (which are reference routes for PennDOT, not for routing!) along another POSTED route, please add them via the 'ref:penndot' tag instead. After discussion on [talk-us] by the community in January '15 (which I invited you to join in on several times so people could hear your side as to why you though they needed to be in the 'ref' tag), the 'ref:penndot' tag was agreed upon for use with all quadrant routes in PA, since they are, and always will be, just reference routes, and not meant for use by the public for routing because that's what the Keystone (+ US and Interstate) route shields are for (routes 1-999). Anything 1000+ should always be in the 'ref:penndot' tag since the are reference routes.

Please don't add 'historic' routes unless they are fully posted with shields and the 'Historic' banner. This is what the 'old_ref' tag is for. This is in reference to way/11836736 and a few other 'Historic' routes you've added in the State College area. PennDOT has never posted a 'Historic' bannered route that I know of anywhere in the state.

So, did you see shields for it (NY 5 Alternate), or was it a guess off of the Tiger tags that were still on the way? Let me know, and then we can proceed from there.

I was mostly wondering if you had been there recently in regards to that route you added (meaning if you had seen shields in the field for it). Since I hadn't been in that area recently, I didn't want to revert a new route (NY 5 Alternate) if it had been indeed posted by NYSDOT. That's why I was waiting for a response from you on that subject.