Finished reverting Nebraska, and worth noting: there IS a relation for Heartland Expwy already in place.

Building on what SD Mapman said, keep in mind that what we see on OSM and what providers use are often different. If I type "10036 Highway 79" as my destination address into an OSM-based router, the router is going to look for an address with name=Highway 79. If that doesn't exist, the router is going to struggle to route correctly.

Does that make sense?

I haven't heard from you and you haven't reverted this changeset, so I am going to submit this to be reverted.

I'm suggesting to you to add it as alt_name, not that alt_name already existed. To my knowledge, no one actually has an address of Heartland Expwy; it's always something like Highway 385. The name Heartland Expwy is more of a generic name, like the Grand Army of the Republic Highway. No one actually uses it as an address.

If it actually appears on a blade, it should absolutely be included!

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but we have to make sure everything is compliant with OSM standards. Please refer to this page: osm.wiki/Names On-the-ground always gets priority. This can be especially important when it comes to things like addresses, because to my knowledge there is nowhere that has the address of Heartland Expwy, and certainly not the entire length.

In this case, the name= should be the name that appears on the blades. In most if not all cases, Heartland Expwy does not appear on signage, but other names do.

I would revert this edit. Heartland Expwy can then be added as a alt_name tag and/or as a relation.
I'd be more inclined to the latter (I thought it already was at one point, but maybe I'm mistaken).

Is Heartland Expressway explicitly signed as such? Otherwise official_name would be better.

Yes, work has begun! About time.

That's above my technical level. Best I've got is future_ref=

I think you may have jumped the gun a bit here; this approval was just announced by NDOT (it's been submitted and rejected for years) and isn't going to be implemented until spring. https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/5yxdus45/20260210-d8-hwyrenumbering.pdf

Hastings is well-signed (and just replaced a bunch with newer signs not too long ago). GI and Columbus last I looked were poorly signed but more than US 30 in Fremont, which I have only found evidence at the termini pre-completion of the US 30 project and no remaining signs through Fremont itself.

There used to be a few more, including where it curved north to follow what was US 77 and along that corridor and at the south side where it began at the terminus of N-36. Glancing at street-level imagery, it does appear that most of those signs have been removed, as well as most of the BUS US 30 signs. Should I go ahead and remove that one as well?

I don't know how familiar you are with Nebraska business routes, but they are strictly locally operated, to the extent that the state will not acknowledge them on their signs. As a result, they don't appear in the state highway logbook and are hard to find official documentation on. There's only a handful left in the state (US 20 in S Sioux City, US 6 in Hastings, US 30 in Columbus, N-2 in GI and Neb City, and US 75 in Neb City). I think Norfolk killed US 275 BUS, and I might go and check on the others.

Did Fremont remove the Business US 275 signage? I haven't been up there in a minute. I know it was poorly signed (as is everything in Fremont...) but thought there were still signs.

Well, this sent me down a rabbit hole, and I don't have an answer as a result. According to some state maps, this is actually and bizarrely correct. https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/v5mlid3d/cfuncdundysfc.pdf Dundy County GIS uses OSM, so that wasn't much help, and NGPC maps don't show this at all.

My inclination would be to extend Haiger Canal to the Arikaree River, as there are definitely parts that appear to be manmade (namely that really straight stretch), but I don't really have a way of confirming that.

Why did you eliminate service=driveway?

This did not open until today. Please do not rely on aerial imagery to remove construction as that may be severely outdated. Also, OSM has a policy against using imagery without a license.

It is not. Fixed. Thanks for catching; not sure how this slipped past me!

Can you be more specific as to where the concern is? This is a four year old edit and my memory isn't that good! I don't disagree with your statement in general, but I also can't verify this situation without knowing where you are referring to.

Not surprised; Haymarket is a bit of a mess and I just need to go through and clean up a bunch of things. I'll take a crack at it sometime this week.

Whoops; thanks!

As much as I appreciate the Cornhusker Council history as an avid Scouter in the area, this is not how to edit this. This is not the name of the woodland, and historic names have a different tagging scheme.

I recommend checking out OpenHistoricMaps for stuff like this.