The comment here has a typo; I meant "deletion"

Hello, and thanks for contributing.

I've reverted this change since it goes against the 2021 trunk/motorway classification guidelines, which impose additional requirements on what is allowed to be either of those classifications. In this case, the road definitely is controlled-access (i.e. a freeway), but it does not directly connect to any other trunk or motorway. As such, it is not part of the interconnected trunk/motorway network, and shouldn't be that classification. You can read more about the guidelines here: osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

The road already was and still is tagged with expressway=yes, which conveys the upgraded construction. If there are signs that explicitly say that foot and bicycle traffic is prohibited, you may tag the road with foot=no and/or bicycle=no to convey this.

Also, looking at Bing Streetside, there are signs that say "PRIVATE - KEEP OUT". The imagery date is fairly old, so can you verify that you've surveyed this and confirmed that it's now public?

Hi,

Generally, access=yes is assumed if there is no tag. While it's not wrong to add, it's probably best to only add it in borderline situations where someone might wonder if there is no public access.

Hello,

If this is private property, access=private should probably be used without any bus=* (or similar) tags.

Hello,

Please make sure that you use lowercase letters in your tags. access=Yes should be access=yes.

JOSM glitched out and uploaded before I could write a changeset comment. The comment was supposed to be "Downgrade overclassified roads".

Hello,

I am looking at the following two ways:
way/31722444
way/1176299267

In this changeset, it looks like you added the tag `toll:backward=||designated`. What did you mean by this? I would have just changed it to `toll:lanes:backward`, but it looks like there are only two lanes on this road.

Since I haven't heard back, I am going to revert this for the time being. Note that the limited access nature of the road is already reflected in expressway=yes, which is independent of the classification. I don't think that the road is as important as the other motorways or trunks in the area, which is why I think primary is appropriate.

Also note this section from the national 2021 classification guidelines: "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."

Hi,

I'm looking at the classification guidelines now, and it shows this road as primary south of Sunrise Highway. It does map to trunk for the section north to the Southern State Parkway, but I don't think that it is that much more important than the other section. Also, a driver can get between the two motorways using the Robert Moses Causeway, so there is already a trunk route covering this.

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, I neglected to look at the history on these ways; since they were highway=residential, and the geometry was quite bad in some places, I assumed that they had been neglected since the TIGER import.

Also, I had not made myself familiar with the Connecticut classification guidelines, which I should have done beforehand. I did not realize that it had such a strict stance towards tertiary and especially unclassified roads.

I've just sent a message in the OSMUS Slack about the situation, and tagged both you and jnighan in the thread. I'd appreciate any input on the topic (mainly whether to use highway=unclassified).

Hi,

I've reverted this since these are ramps, not roads unto themselves.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163029047

Hello,

This does not look to be the actual name of this area. Additionally, you removed the wetlands tag, which should not be done even if there was a name to add.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162979557

Also, you don't need to split up your edits so much; you can do one changeset per group of houses instead of one changeset for every house.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162957473

Hello,

When editing, please try not to delete the original object only to remap it from scratch. Since you are using JOSM, you can install the plugin named "utilsplugin2" (see Edit>Preferences>Plugins), and then use the "Replace Geometry" tool. With that, you can move the original house out of the way, draw the new shape, select both the old and new shape, and then press Ctrl+Shift+G. That will keep the history of the old house while also allowing you to make a new shape.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162957473

Hi,

What is the source for the destination:lanes tags you added? I don't recall there being signs for the RFK bridge here.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161475541

Under the new trunk classification guidelines, the road could only be sufficiently important to justify trunk or motorway between the two other motorways.

Hello,

I see that you used the tag `lanes:unmarked=yes` here to denote the lack of lane markings. Currently, there are only 515 of this tag in the world, in contrast to `lane_markings=no` which has over 1.4 million. Also, the latter tag is documented on the wiki, while the former is not. As such, I would recommend using `lane_markings=*` for this going forward.

The two most common values for `lanes:unmarked=*` is 1 and 2, so perhaps this tag is usually used when some lanes are not marked while the rest are. Even still, this is a much more obscure tag than `lane_markings=*`.

I removed ref=GSPC because this is a simple abbreviation of the full name, rather than a code that was consciously assigned by the authorities.

Whoops, the tags were actually usually hgvtrimble=no.