Ah, that is a fair point. Perhaps it would make sense to upgrade the westbound lanes to primary while keeping the eastbound lanes at secondary then between Maple/Walnut and US 2 (since the road has split carriageways for part of it)?

Wells Road was pretty much the last road I upgraded to secondary, as the route from Cheney to Malden. I wouldn't object if someone else changed it back to secondary.

Sunset Highway, I'm more inclined to say my change was justified. Definitely secondary, but I can't see how it would be primary when I-90 is a faster route that's directly adjacent, meaning that Sunset only really serves local traffic. And 10000 isn't that many vehicles for a major metro area (most of the primary roads in Spokane have AADTs of over 20000)

Thanks for the comment. 7000 is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than all of the other primary and most of the secondary roads in the area. I think primary was major overclassification, wouldn't object if you were to re-upgrade it to secondary.

I disagree with you on this one. Were E-470 free then I would agree with that point, but since it's a toll road the parallel routes take on a much higher significance than they would otherwise. And it's the only through road that's not tolled for miles in each direction. I put zero weight into whether something is state- or county-maintained; it's just a designation and has nothing to do with how important the road is to the network.

This is one that I could see going either way. I was a little concerned about the density of primary roads that I had to implement in this area, so before I saved the changes I downgraded a few of what I viewed as the somewhat-less-important roads. I wouldn't object if you re-upgraded it to primary.

Thanks for the feedback! I agree; the vast majority of state routes should be at least secondary, but there is zero reason for any non-local traffic to use this route.

With regards to the Deer Trail and Agate streets that exit I-70, I purposefully left those as secondary since they are the main points of access into those small towns. But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on and I can see the argument for tertiary as well.

I did not change speed limits as I consider them beyond the scope of the work that I've been doing.

Whoops, that was completely unintentional! Thanks for fixing it.

Thanks for the comment! The reason I've been going slowly is because I'm trying to put a lot of thought and work into my classifications, with my increased free time from normal due to covid. I've been using a combination of methods to figure out what are the appropriate classifications for the roads. These include traffic counts, number of lanes, proximity to other major non-tolled routes, importance of the road in the network, and similar considerations.

I do not live in Denver currently, but I have spent a non-trivial amount of time there.

To expand on the issues I'm having with roads in Sugar House...2100 S west of 1300 and 1300 E south of 2100 are clearly the main roads through the area, and should be primary. Wilmington is clearly more important than all the other unclassified roads in the area, and should be tertiary. However, 1100 E/Highland is what's causing the issues. North of 1700 S, 1100 E is clearly tertiary, and it's definitely secondary south of 1700 S. However, this makes the secondary road stop at a weird place (a tertiary road). What's more, the part of Highland north of 215 is definitely secondary, but the part south of 215 I think should be tertiary (horrible traffic light timing at 2700 S and 1300 E, and better routes nearby in 1300 E and 900 E). But if I make the road tertiary, then it puts on equal importance to Wilmington, which is clearly incorrect. Any suggestions? In my edits here, I solved the second issue by making 1300 E primary between Highland and I-215, but it seems like a hack to me...

I'm also having issues with where to end the secondary classification on the east side of South Temple. Directly east of 700 E, it's definitely still secondary. But by the time it reaches 1300 E, it's definitely only tertiary. But there's no obvious place in between to switch classification. Thoughts?

I originally demoted it because while it may appear to be a major arterial highway, it's really not a heavily-used road in comparison with other roads in the area, most of which are listed as secondary. See the traffic count page at https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0::::V,T:,528 for details. It is pretty much redundant to I-15, with the latter serving its function but better. But I won't edit war over it; it's not important enough to.

Ah, yeah from living in Oregon for many years, the federal functional class for non-state highways and state highways in Portland is actually pretty indicative of the true road importances (with a few minor exceptions that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis). Portland is a city with a very small number of freeways/expressways for its size, so the arterials in the area gather much more traffic and importance than in other similarly-sized cities like Denver.

Ah interesting. I preferred the federal functional class because (unlike the OHP class) it also applies to non-state roads, which should obviously use the same classification scheme as the state highways in OR. Seems there's no one good solution unfortunately... Will think on highways like OR 99 and OR 238 some more...

And such constructive criticism of my changes like you provided is course always appreciated!

But judging by what you said above, doesn't seem like that will happen soon :(

Agree on your point about Trunk here; I think there needs to be a classification above primary for the truly vital routes but that aren't expressways (e.g. US 101, US 97, OR 22 and such)

And I can verify all the highways I've either upgraded to or downgraded from trunk either do or don't have high access control, respectively (either driven them myself or have looked closely at maps)

Ah, looks like ODOT has two different, competing sets of classifications then. If you go to ODOT's TransGIS, and look at "Federal Functional Class" under the Classifications tab, those are the ones I'm using, which seem to represent reality well. Here, red corresponds to primary (of course), blue is a toss-up between primary and secondary, and green is secondary with a few tertiary mixed in there. Pink and gray I'm always denoting as tertiary with these rules. Under these rules, to use one of your examples, having OR 238 as primary makes total sense, seeing as it is denoted as blue on ODOT's map, and has quite high traffic traffic counts for a rural highway (much higher than e.g. OR 66). I've also downgraded a LOT of minor routes (not principal arterial, very low traffic counts) in eastern Oregon to primary to secondary as you say is correct (e.g. OR 19, OR 138, OR 74, OR 31); I agree that many of the routes were listed too high previously

In short, I guess it needs to be decided which of the two classification schemes to follow: OHP Class or Federal Functional Class. They're mostly consistent, but several routes like OR 238 appear to be quite different between the two.

And I agree that secondary routes should be rendered much better at lower zooms :)

Or perhaps, looking at their map more closely, red should be orange, blue we can and should use our judgment to determine if red or yellow, green should be yellow, and pink should be white?

Red on that map should be orange here, blue and green should be yellow, and pink should be white it seems. With the exception of US routes, which should always be orange?

Ah thank you; I was unaware of that link! Will use it! Looks like the vast majority of my edits happened to follow it anyways though :)

Traffic counts can be found at https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Flow_Map_2017.pdf

I'm trying to balance the factors such as traffic counts, length, connectivity, and "feel" when modifying the classifications.