I made a typo in both the comment and the source. The correct URL is changeset/176165267.

Alright, will do!

Oh, okay. Should I delete this polygon, too?

Oh, okay. In that case, should I just delete these "new" freeways since, according to you, they're just temporary?

Alright, I guess that makes sense. But here's the thing: I'm not actually sure if any of the new roads I just mapped are temporary or not (with respect to the construction timeline). The random track road I created linking Summerlin Parkway westbound to the freeway link is temporary for sure, but I'm not 100% sure if the "new" one-lane freeways that parallel the 215 are just temporary road construction bypasses or are indicative of a new project, such as "local" and "express" lanes, similar to what California does with its Interstates.

Oh, alright then. I guess I'll just have to wait then.

Why did you downgrade these secondary roads to tertiary? Based on the way they're built, they appear to be minor arterial roads, rather than collector/distributor roads. (Of course, they don't connect to anything right now other than other roads, and they also have no traffic right now.) (Also, the secondary portion of Alta Drive is now no longer connected to any secondary roads or higher, leaving a stub/spur between Park Drift Trail and Sky Vista Drive.)

Also, what's with that one-lane freeway located between the two carriageways of the 215? Is that a lane widening? HOV lanes? An "express" lane (as described on Wikipedia, for non-locals to drive with fewer exits)? A tollway? Something else? Does this even matter? (And why did I not request review... smh 🤦‍♂️)

This is "Attempted to fix tags (P2)"

@idkwhatname2use This isn't about California State Routes 7 and 9. This edit concerns a new 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲, which could be designated either I-7 or I-9 (but (probably) not both). My motivation for adding Future I-7/9 to OSM was its inclusion on the Wikipedia article "List of future Interstate highways." IIRC, the article only lists highways that, once upgraded to Interstate standards, will be designated an Interstate. (In the meantime, they might get signposted as "Future I-x (Corridor)".)

I also created three relations for Future I-7/9: one for the northbound direction, one for the southbound direction, and a super-relation containing the other two.

Both cases can be indicated by `unsigned_ref=I 444` and `unsigned_ref=I 505`, respectively. Wikipedia's "List of future Interstate highways" article lists I-3, I-7/9, I-42, and I-67 as one- and two-digit future highways that will become Interstates. Also, the OSM Wiki specifically states that highways should still have `ref=*` tags for backward compatibility, not exactly something I'd say is "deprecated."

`ref` is deprecated for ways? I don't think that's true at all, especially for highways. Also, Wikipedia says that I-42 has already been Congressionally designated. Does this not count?

I thought that the convention was to abbreviate modifiers like Business. Since these are `ref` tags and not `name` tags, abbreviations should be allowed here, at least according to the OSM Wiki.

These roads in particular lacked any `name:prefix=*`, `name:suffix=*`, or `name:full=*` tags, and the already-existing `name=*` tags had no directional prefixes or suffixes whatsoever (AFAIK).

Thanks! 👍

I feared exactly this would happen. A photo from inside the tunnel is a sign indicating the start of I-10, even though it legally begins at Lincoln Blvd. I will change this accordingly.

All that describes the road's physical characteristics, which can be tagged with expressway=yes and access_control=*. The way that it is classified right now means that Ted Williams Pkwy doesn't connect to any other trunk road or motorway/freeway, hence why I downgraded it to primary east of the I-15.

Okay. Well, isn't one of the rules for Interstates be that they don't have at-grade intersections? (I know this isn't an Interstate [yet], but still...)

Hello, why did you split these highways? That only makes them harder to edit.

changeset/175556616