This change needs to be reverted. See Changeset: 64421203.
Falk Road no longer crosses WA 500, and the ERSI 2017 data is no longer accurate.

While I completely disagree with your interpretation of that sign (the US 20 junction from I-5 has 'Santiam Highway' on the sign), I actually do agree with the rest of your assesement. Perhaps the Salmon River Highway no. 39 designation be added as an alt tag instead of the format I used to begin with? I do believe it should be added but not as as the primary tag (Newberg-Dundee Bypass is sufficient for this until the final phases of the construction project are done).

Why was this changed? It is signed as 'Salmon River Hwy' at the junction with OR 219.

Never heard of Mapillary until now o.0
I drove I-84 this morning after dropping my roommate off at work.

Sounds like a plan. How does this affect the Transport Layer of the map, particularly the placement of the route numbers? It seems that at the moment, only the older, deprecated tags show the route number on the layer (notably, the C-Tran commuter lines, Tillamook's line 5).
Also, TriMet's adding a new line with the Orange line's opening, which could be added to the Portland wiki http://trimet.org/alerts/service-change/2015fall/index.htm#line291

And presumably, at some point the other transit providers (CAT, SAM, Columbia County, etc) will be added?

Exit 2 (west) is 43rd, and 3 (east) is 58th. Additionally, the exit mileage signs at 21st, 39th/Chavez and 53rd all use 58th Ave.
I will say it's odd for ODOT to use these instead of 42nd or Halsey and 60th or Glisan, but the motoway_junction signs are explicitly naming the ramps as the destinations in these two instances.

If I'm understanding you (and the wiki) correctly, the route heading should be reading "Bus 9 Powell: Portland->Gresham" instead of "9 Powell" role "Portland->Gresham"?
The pre-edit tag of "Bus 9 Portland->Gresham" was lacking the route's name, which prompted these edits.

Those are the two signs I have in mind. If memory serves, 58th (not 60th) is also on one of the eastbound exit mileage signs.

Paul, I'll double check the signage from the freeway to see if ODOT's changed it in the recent past.

From I-5 to 42nd, is WA 500 divided? Is it controlled access?
From 54th to Fourth Plain, is it divided? Is it controlled access?
And, from 42nd to 54th, is it divided? Is it controlled access?

But this is the point you're not considering: We are classifying how the road functions in actual operation, from in the field observation!

Again, isn't OSM's mission to provide the most accurate maps online through the use of open collaboration? Rigidly adhering to definitions that don't fit every situation compromises cartographic accuracy and disservices the end user. It's bad enough that OSM uses the Mercator projection (and note this is only a critique of the distortions inherent to Mercator, not a social commentary of the projection); why make things worse by stubbornly holding to rules that don't exactly fit situations at hand?

If you were familiar with the road, why call it a Super-4 when it's not? Why compare it to OR 224, when such a comparison is disingenuous at best?
And speaking of OR 224, it is incorrectly mapped as a twinned highway when it isn't.

And the 'nature' of the road is a freeway with an expressway break. It is not a surface expressway.
To use an absurd simile:
A person has a prosthetic limb. They are wanting to clone their missing limb but can't afford it so the prosthetic must do in the meantime.
By your standard, instead of accurately calling them a person with a prosthetic limb, they are a mannequin (I am discounting the fact that mannequins aren't alive for this comparison).

No one in their right mind would make that argument, yet that argument is being made for WA 500. On a map that is designed for as much cartographic accuracy as possible, countermanding the definition of the transportation agency that built and maintains the route (which should be the final say for mapping purposes), and countermanding the mappers who live in the area and have field checked the route.

This accuracy is ultimately for the benefit of the end user, the people who use OSM as an alternative to the other online maps who have become rife with errors. Putting routes under blanket tags is an error.

Do not compare WA 500 to OR 224. They are apples to oranges. WA 500 is fully divided from I-5 to WA 503/Fourth Plain; you are incorrect in saying that it isn't. And again, you are attempting to generalize the road into a single category, which is cartographically dishonest for a map that strives to be as accurate as possible.

So no, WA 500, in the segments in contention, is NOT a Super-4. It is a fully divided freeway.

WA 500 is divided. It has two carriageways.
Super-4's do not. OR 224 is a Super-4.

The only crossover points on WA 500 are from where the concrete divider begins and ends at the left turn lanes for 42nd, and at 54th.

From osm.wiki/United_States_roads_tagging:
"Any freeway anywhere in the United States, whether designated Interstate or otherwise, gets highway=motorway."
WSDOT considers WA 500 from I-5 to 42nd/Falk and from 54th/Stapleton to Fourth Plain/WA 503 as a freeway. These two segments are built to freeway standards -- four lanes, divided, shoulders a lane wide, speed limit of 55. The entrances to these segments are marked with "Freeway Entrance" signs.
Furthermore, determining if a route is a freeway or trunk based on its length and number of interchanges and/or intersections is arbitrary and asinine, undermining the accuracy that OSM strives for and does a disservice for the end user.
I honestly am not sure what the point of questioning the agency's definition of their own highways is. If WSDOT considers the two segments of WA 500 in contention as a freeway, both by the map linked to in thread above and quoted from their email in the other changeset thread, I submit it's very clear what these two segments is supposed to be.

Comparisons to OR 224 aren't fair or even accurate -- OR 224 is by and large a Super-4 expressway, with the only twinned portions being with the interchanges with OR 99E and with SE Lake Rd.
Also, US 26 southeast of Gresham, while intended to tie into the never built Mt Hood Freeway, doesn't really compare to WA 500, as it likewise only has one interchange (OR 212).
Newberg-Dundee Bypass and Sunrise Corridor, once fully complete, will be freeways, but they're not issues at this time because both will only be Super-2s per their Phase 1 construction.

Also, your comment, "It's kind of silly to suggest that WA 500 is of the same character as I 84," makes little sense - both I-84s are long-distance regional interstates with urban sections while WA 500 is purely an urban freeway with an expressway portion, setting aside the Orchards-Camas segment. That would be like downgrading CA 71 to trunk for its whole length because it's of a different character to I-10.

Essentially, countermanding a state DOT's definition of a route doesn't make sense, particularly when that definition matches what exists in the field. Generalizing what a route is on a map that is striving for accuracy is a disservice to the map's integrity.

Fremont Freeway would be an incorrect designation. It'd either be an extension of the Stadium Freeway or part of the cancelled Prescott Freeway. If Kerby Ave Ramp is not a designation we want to use, then it should revert to being blank.

Related: Exit 2 westbound I-84 and Exit 3 eastbound I-84. Exit 2 is signed as 'NE 43rd Ave'; 3 is signed as 'NE 58th Ave'. Neither ramps go past their terminal points with NE Halsey St or NE Glisan St, respectively; both ramps are signed as NE 43rd Ave and NE 58th Ave.
Proposal: Name the offramp of Exit 2 from the north end of the bridge over the rail tracks to Halsey St as NE 43rd Ave, and name both the off- and onramps of Exit 3 from where they cross where NE Hoyt St would be south to Glisan St as NE 58th Ave to match street blades at the end of the ramps.

Returning the discussion to WA 500 and whether it should be a trunk or motorway: Per correspondence with WSDOT, WA 500 between I-5 and WA 503/Fourth Plain Blvd is under long range plans to be fully grade separated.
"Your recent inquiry about long term plans on SR 500 has been forwarded to me for response.

As you are aware, WSDOT has been replacing the signalized intersections along this corridor for many years. The most recent project, which was funded by the legislature out of the Transportation Partnership Account (TPA) and completed in the fall of 2012, constructed the interchange at St. John's Blvd.

Replacing the signalized intersections at 42nd Ave. and 54th Ave. are identified as high priorities to improve traffic flow and safety. At this time, however, there is no funding identified for design or construction so a timetable is not available. WSDOT will continue to monitor the corridor, including these two intersections, and will look for low cost operational improvements as conditions and funding deem appropriate.

Thank you for taking the time to contact WSDOT.

Brian McMullen
WSDOT SW Region Program and Services Manager"

Furthermore, using "500 would be a poor fit for motorway as, out of 9 junctions, 3 or 4 of them are at-grade" as criteria opens a large quality assurance problem with the high number of short motorways across the country, including many short interstates. These include US 30 between NW Nicolai and I-405 (one interchange, NW 23rd and Vaughn), WA 432 (4 interchanges and an at-grade railroad crossing), WA 303 (3 interchanges, with a non-free flow interchange at WA 3), CA 160 in Sacramento, CA 132 between I-580 and I-5, CA 204 in Bakersfield, CA 138 at I-5, both segments of CA 90, particularly the eastern one, CA 330 in Highland, and, for interstates: I-705 in Tacoma (with WA 7 as an extension), I-105 in Eugene (and OR 126 in Springfield), I-110 in El Paso, I-535/US 53 in Duluth/Superior, and so on.
Secondly, not counting WA 503/Fourth Plain (the freeway's eastern terminus), there are only two at grade intersections (42nd and 54th). I argue that using a rubric of an interchange per freeway length to determine whether it should be designated as a motorway or trunk on the map vs how it functions on the ground is overly pedantic. Having driven WA 500 several times, it's clear that the route is meant to function as a freeway with the two unbuilt interchanges forcing the intervening segment as an expressway. I believe that from I-5 to 42nd Ave, and from 54th Ave to WA 503/Fourth Plain, WA 500 should be marked as a motorway, not trunk, and the segment between 42nd and 54th, until WSDOT can finance and complete the interchanges, should be trunk, as it's currently marked. Otherwise, the many short freeways, including the under construction Newberg-Dundee Bypass and Sunrise Corridor, would have to be reexamined to ensure mapping standards are upheld, despite their function in the field.

It's local nomenclature for this particular ramp, and the only one to have it. I doubt it's signed as such on inventory tags along the ramp, but I will attempt to field verify this. I do know the BGS signage for this exit on northbound I-405 indicates Kerby Ave, which is where the ramp's name likely comes from.