Considering this is the 95 Business route, that would make US 95/Oran K. Gragson Fwy the official bypass. Rancho should remain primary since its role is only to be an urban arterial road and not a thruway for long distance traffic. I would also keep the collector/distributor lanes paralleling the freeways as motorway links, especially since part of these ramps are the direct link between 95 S and 15 S, and the rest link too many different roads to the freeway for its main purpose to be a link between two surface roads.

I added the tag not based on the rides necessarily but rather because of its entertainment focus with various amenities including show venues, restaurants, the carousel, a playground, an aquarium, and art studios. This is also out of my hesitation to instead add amenity=arts_centre since it doesn't serve as one venue but rather a property with multiple venues and attractions of varying types.

Should clarify that these tags should be added to the highway the shoulders are attached to itself (in this case, the 215) rather than mapped as a separate line.

Since there's no physical separation from the road, I would instead add the tags shoulder=both with shoulder:left:width=15 (the shoulder appears to be approx. 15m wide according to a rough measurement on aerial imagery by tracing a line in iD across the width of the shoulder) for tagging specifically the inner shoulders. More specific shoulder tags can be seen here: shoulder=*

This doesn't seem to be a service road or emergency lane, but rather a really wide shoulder to plan ahead for the expansion of the Beltway and addition of future lanes when needed.

*Bridgedale

You can also go to osmus.slack.com to join the server yourself, which could come in handy for asking questions about tagging schemes with the #tagging channel.

To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't know if it would mess with routing in some way, like by telling users who are coming from Primm Boulevard eastbound toward the resort to "turn right onto South Las Vegas Boulevard toward I 15" when they are in fact driving away from it.

I have to assume there's a way to tag this, I just don't know how since this the first time I've seen something like this. I could ask in the OSM US Slack and get back to you if I get any answers, if you'd like.

There are a handful of cases where US Highways can be tagged below primary when they don't serve traffic any differently from another highway tagged below primary in the hierarchy would. Route 30 has a tertiary section around The Dalles, Oregon. In this case, though, I would say that this section of highway in Pocatello shouldn't be secondary based on how the general consensus is that the most direct major roads leading into the downtown of a major city should be primary, which makes sense from a navigational standpoint.

An official designation would mean that this is a special route of I 15, thus a federal highway. However, a federal highway would be within public right of way, while the ring road here is fully within the grounds of the resort and the mall. To my knowledge, 'Ring Road' also isn't an official AASHTO designation unlike Business loops are. I have to assume any signage of this being the 'I 15 Ring Road' would be only to assist traffic in navigating back to the Interstate, maybe so motorists don't confuse the road for a dead-end when it actually loops back around.

Secondary is definitely a little low for Route 30 through here, but I probably wouldn't upgrade it anywhere past primary. Route 30 is a cross-country highway, but this particular section really only serves as a business route linking the real through highways (the Interstates) to the Downtown area of Pocatello.

I think it's fine having the primary routes terminate at the entrances since once you've reached the gate, you've reached the destination that the road leads to (in this case Yellowstone). Another way to interpret it: any traffic traveling between the park and a nearby town (like West Yellowstone or Cody) is through traffic, and any traffic within the park is local traffic.

These roads probably should not be tagged as primary since they aren't major highways, and instead are only used by park visitors. Through traffic cannot use them since a pass is needed to enter.

Reverted it again skipping reverting conflicted elements and it still created the gap (which I just now fixed), and neither this revert nor the last do I recall any errors being reported. Not sure why either options would have only deleted the new way without restoring the original way to its previous form.

I think it would have been fairly quick for me to have fixed these issues manually since the only deleted ways would have been new ones created by splitting existing ways in the changeset that I reverted. Since these ways hold no history other than the first changeset and the reverts, I'm going to revert it again then fix them.

Everything looks accurate to the current construction now. Only change I made here was removing a temporary road that seems to only be an access road for construction vehicles.

One of the focal points of the 2021–onwards reclassification of trunks roads was avoiding classification highways as trunk based solely on AADT and/or their physical construction and rather their importance in the system, with emphasis on long-haul connectivity. These roads only serve Tucson as major thoroughfares from the suburbs towards Downtown and I-10, which is essentially the main function of other urban primary roads, whereas a trunk road would play a role in serving other population centers, like Route 77 does.

Bikes lanes won't usually indicate a road's role in the system as cities will often put those markings on minor streets rather than major roadways that have higher traffic and speed limits dangerous to cyclists. A notable example of this are Tucson's "bike boulevards".

Though things like lane markings, bike lanes, transit infrastructure such as bus service, etc. do indicate a road is more important and absolutely could be criteria for identifying that a road is more important when compared to another, connectivity with destinations and the local road network should be considered first.

Though the sparse population and lack of any major non-residential development is the reason the lack of traffic and priority in the road network Ann Rd has between the Beltway and Durango, when referring to the low development of the Summerlin West, I'm referring not to the development density but really that this is the edge of Las Vegas and is primarily residential, thus roads in the area aren't serving thru traffic as much as they are serving the Summerlin West development and only that as there's really nowhere else that the roads can connect to. This differs from roads like Town Center, Rampart, Cheyenne, Charleston, etc. which either span the valley, link thru traffic to other major roads and freeways, serve large swaths of commercial development, see high traffic counts across their entire routes, etc.

No worries, I re-added the tag to the node.