Why did you divide this? It's not divided by a median. In addition, you left some knobs of roads and broke some relations. Please be more careful in the future.

Why did you revery these trunk roads to primary? under the new classification standards, trunks are supposed to form a complete network, avoiding spurs when possible.

The interchange with Homestead Expwy was not correctly done. The way you have done this, the trunk designation randomly stops, as opposed to the prior configuration where it led directly into the onramp. Having the junction between the secondary road and the trunk road occur at a bridge gap furthermore complicates the situation because it causes the secondary road visually to get priority.

In addition, turn lanes that are not divided from the main road (such as this case) should not be drawn separately but designated using tags. Otherwise it implies that there is a separate road.

You need to revert this edit. OSM standards do not allow 2 lane freeways to be marked as motorway. This was correctly labeled previously as a trunk road and expressway.

Just because it is in the NHS does not make it a trunk road. Please remember that OSM has its own set of standards. This results in a trunk spur, which should be avoided.

I see you've been doing a lot of much needed edits in Kansas. I encourage you to start discussions on #local_kansas on Slack and maybe even start the Kansas Highway Classification page on the wiki.

See comment I just gave you on a different issue. You seem to be confusing trunk and expressway. It's a relatively recent change to the standards, but it is one that needs to be used.

See comment I just gave you on a different issue. You seem to be confusing trunk and expressway. It's a relatively recent change to the standards, but it is one that needs to be used.

Trunk roads do not need to be undivided. However, if you feel that this is best left as primary, please eliminate the trunk spur further north to MO D.

See comment I just gave you on a different issue. You seem to be confusing trunk and expressway. It's a relatively recent change to the standards, but it is one that needs to be used.

According to the link you provided, there are not to be random islands of trunk roads; they are supposed to form an interconnected network. This is one of the big pushes from the 2019 and 2021 Highway Classification guides. This type of road would be primary and marked with expressway=yes, unless you see need to consider it trunk from Gray Summit to Manchester.

Please remember that OSM has its own standards not mandated by any DOT. While US 81 may not be an interstate, it meets freeway (motorway) standards as it does not have any at-grade intersections. Please revert this edit.

Feel free to ask any questions and read this article. highway=motorway

Why is this a trunk highway? I 76 is right there, and BL 76 does not really serve anything beyond Sterling (I'm kind of amazed it still exists beyond a spur into Sterling).

"The Trunk classification generally should not be applied to highways that are parallel to motorways, especially highways within a short distance (less than 5 miles) from the motorway." osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#Trunk

I added my points to the talk page there, but not sure where this conversation you're mentioning is taking place. All I found was one person saying it should be a trunk route to Kansas (which it doesn't enter...). If there's another conversation happening elsewhere, let me know!

Having driven this many times, I'm not sure what your justification is in upgrading this to trunk road west of Brush, and I did not see any documentation on this. Trunk roads should not be spurs of the network when possible, and should have a significant destination. How does Haigler meet that definition?
Please refer to the OSM Wiki on highway classification if you're unsure about classification levels. Nebraska also has a chat on Slack relating to these very questions, and I believe Colorado does as well.
Let me know your justification and we can decide whether it needs to change or not.

I agree with this and your assessment of 1051594775. However, I wasn't the one who mapped these; I think they showed up here because I nudged a node or something for an unrelated edit.

Yes, I was trying to get it to render correctly on a shield but it doesn't appear that what I did worked anyway.

Whoever I had that conversation with months ago. I don't remember and I don't particularly care to look it up. But that was my first experience with state-based regulations (like Minnesota's bizarre motorway islands that cause confusion and look hideous in my opinion), and there is a LOT of variance state to state. I also found a lot of places in Minnesota's documentation that is contradictory to itself, hence why I figured it would be best to just bow out and let locals deal with it. Now I'm working on Nebraska's standards since we don't have any documentation.

Fear not, I was already instructed at length about how Minnesota does not conform to standards elsewhere in the country, reverted all of my MN edits, and promised never to touch MN again months ago. Never editing there again; too many complex and contradictory rules!

Dang, was hoping I could link different additions of the same neighborhood easier, but that obviously didn't work. Won't try that again! (That wasn't the new method I referred to earlier, though.)

I am not sure what's going on with 11964102; that wasn't one of mine. At a glance, it looks like inner and outer boundaries are overlapping; I'll fiddle with it and see if I can figure it out.

Got it!

The problem with that method is that it creates a sloppier look and makes it much more difficult to work with future edits with the added clutter and trying to separate overlapping lines. I'm trying a different technique now that should help reduce this.

My kingdom for a working error alert system for boundaries when I go to submit! Those are now fixed.