Proposal talk:Extended expressway tagging

embargo length?

I feel like 9 months is too long of an embargo before using any new tagging that is successfully adopted. Looking at taginfo it seems that Americana and Street ferret are the only ones that specifically indicate that they look for the "yes" value. These projects could and likely should be updated to treat any key that's not "no" as an undifferentiated "yes". They can then choose to add differentiation or not at a later date. --Adamfranco (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that 9 months is long, but I wanted to start high and lower the exact value depending on feedback. It is true that it seems like there aren't that many projects using the tag currently, so we could probably go lower. ZLima12 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

2 or 3 values?

I believe that choosing two values for a top quality road and a lesser quality road is a reasonable choice. That said, I wonder if there is utility in an intermediary value that could cover the roads with full access control, but narrow shoulders, tight exits, and/or limited vertical clearance. I'm thinking specifically of many of the New York City Parkways, which are mostly fully controlled access and dual carriageway, but deficient in construction and design parameters compared to Interstates. At this point I could go either way, but mostly want to open this discussion so that the result is well considered. --Adamfranco (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I considered this, but I decided to stick with two for a few reasons:

• The word "expressway" typically is used for two main classes of road
• Potential ambiguity between the two controlled-access variants
• The use of the combination expressway=limited + access_control=full to describe these substandard roads instead

I recognize that the combination of these two tags may seem somewhat contradictory, which is why I am somewhat open to changing the exact values of expressway=limited and expressway=controlled. The two tags are not meant to be entirely strict with access control (though they do each imply the corresponding access_control=* value by default), but rather describe the general two classes that can be meant by the word "expressway". I do think the current two values describe the difference well though; Wikipedia's Expressway article does the differentiation like this. ZLima12 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

What values?

For a tag specifically focused on the build quality of roads rather than legal designation, the use of Access Control terminology, specifically the "controlled" value, is a bit incongruous. I feel like "limited" is a reasonable term related to build quality as the word can also mean "partial" or "incomplete". For a value to represent the top build quality akin to full Interstate/motorway parameters, I would expect something more like "full", "top", "complete", or another word that could give a more holistic indication that not only is there full access control, but also the curve radius, shoulders, clearances, etc are all top notch. --Adamfranco (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of the term "access control" is less concerned with legality and more so the physical access to the road; if the only way to get onto a highway is via a ramp/link, then it is controlled-access. Nonetheless, I do agree that the two values I proposed, expressway=limited and expressway=controlled, are not perfect. I actually encourage the use of expressway=limited together with access_control=full to describe roads that are fully controlled-access (in the physical sense), but are so substandard that they more closely resemble a typical limited-access expressway instead. I expect that some might think this is contradictory, so I am somewhat open to alternative names for the two values. However, as I described in #2 or 3 values?, I do think the current two names describe the difference well; Wikipedia's Expressway article does the differentiation like this. ZLima12 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

A user informed me that high-speed roads that have traffic lights and at-grade intersections with limited driveway access would still be considered expressways (see SR 146/Saint Rose Parkway and SR&nsbp;160/Blue Diamond Road). How would your proposal indicate that these trunk roads are expressways, despite only having on/off-ramps with I-15? Flap Slimy Outward (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The exact cutoff for what is and isn't an expressway currently isn't universally agreed upon. I do think that this proposal could potentially help differentiate more cases like this, but I'd want the difference to be fairly clear. Either way, currently that kind of road would be tagged as expressway=yes, so under the current proposal it would get expressway=limited. ZLima12 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Overall commentary

Overall, I really like this proposal. I really appreciate how extending the expressway key solves the issue of confusion around European legal status of the term motorway, while finally offering a mechanism to tag high quality roadways that are not top-importance to the overall road network. This feels like a minimally invasive option that would allow us to remove motorway islands without drastic retagging of global roadways. --Adamfranco (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought the expressway=* key would be a good fit because it is already in use to describe the overall physical characteristics of a highway; it seemed like a logical extension to use this key to describe freeways, which are also an overall physical description of a highway. Furthermore, there is actual basis in language to support the use of "expressway" to talk about either type of road, so it makes sense to use that name beyond just being convenient. ZLima12 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Super Twos

Currently, the proposal indicates that:

expressway=limited will have the following minimum requirements/implications:

• dual_carriageway=yes (Divided highway)
• access_control=partial (Limited-access)
• A higher than usual maxspeed=* and accompanying design features, such as motorway-style signage

I'd like to suggest that expressway=limited also apply to "Super Two" roads like parts of US-7 the same as expressway=yes does currently. --Adamfranco (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I had intended that these roads be tagged expressway=limited with access_control=full, and the appropriate lanes=* and oneway=*; however, I realize now that the language I used here (which I mostly took from the existing expressway=yes wiki page) doesn't agree with that. I will update this to include these cases, like the Expressway or Not.png graphic describes. ZLima12 (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated this subsection such that super-twos meet the requirements. It might be worth adding a note or photo examples to clarify things. ZLima12 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Access control

How would your proposal be any different than using access_control=*? We already have access_control=full, access_control=partial, and access_control=no. Flap Slimy Outward (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I am planning on updating this proposal to use different language, because my goal was not about the exact access control situation. Some roads are fully controlled access but might be undivided or otherwise not be up to "motorway standards". In this case, as the proposal is right now, they would get expressway=limited with access_control=full. I talk briefly about this in this section. ZLima12 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)