Thanks! Still missing some stuff (there is a bike bridge as part of the overpass, but I can't remember which side it was going on off the top of my head), but I figure it's low priority since it's not slated to be built for quite some time yet (much to my annoyance because it would greatly improve my ability to get groceries!). I cleaned up some further errors as part of your edit (you had a park extending as a single line). I encourage you to review the wiki on areas and naming (I'm actually going through and fixing some of my own stuff as rules have become clearer), and join the Slack!

This is still not accurate; you have not replaced the proposed routes you mistakenly deleted and you have included city ROW that is not part of this outlot. Typically outlots are not specifically labeled either.

Also, ALL CAPS LABELS are never appropriate.

Please ask the person who put edits in first before you start deleting. I have been working with LTU on this particular project and it is in their long-term plans.

Woof, that's been 8 years ago. I think there was a NDOT page on it, but I'm not finding it at a glance. It does appear on both national and state produced county maps. https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/gzrkf5mm/cfuncdixonsfc.pdf https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/sesilv22/cfuncdixonnfc.pdf The last update to those was in 2022. If we can't find any further evidence that this is still under consideration, I'm fine with removing it.

Road names are the highway names (although as I started double checking past imagery, I came across a sign for US Hwy 7...stay classy, Rock County...). Brown and Keya Paha County do not sign them with green blades at all, and Brown County has a different Old Highway 7, so I assume they wouldn't have two with the same name. My impression is that a lot of the public awareness for this project was because addresses were changing, and I've confirmed NDOT has sent letters to residents affected and I assume it was for this, although I do not know exactly what those letters stated. I did leave old_name= tags. "Assuming" is doing a bit of heavy lifting here, but welcome to rural Nebraska...

Classifications should switch with the realignments, as I did. This is the original alignment for US 183, but was diverted in '66 because the road and bridge quality was too poor per AASHTO standards (interestingly, this would have been at the same time that US 183 was paved south by Taylor (completed in 1967), which was the last gravel US route in the nation. There's your trivia for today). Now that the reconstruction is done, the re-realigned US 183 is the primary route through the area, as it is more direct and shaves off a couple of miles. Also, OSM standards state that US Routes should be primary unless there's a good reason not to. Really, they probably should have switched when the reconstruction was done.

I figured that was going to be the case. This is one of those issues where I have no idea of the right answer, and OSM's wiki doesn't really specify here. For someone trying to find an address, yours would be the preferred usage, but for someone driving, mine would.

Where did the North/South Highway 6 names come from? Signage seems to indicate otherwise (not that Gretna in particular is consistent...). Most signage I see is Highway 6/31.

N-19 is more consistent with the secondary classifications in Nebraska than primary. More traffic will be inclined to use N-/CO 71 or US 138/I 76. I'm not as familiar with Colorado's tagging, but skimming around the area it seems to be consistent with Colorado's secondary state highways as well. It's also a pretty narrow road with no shoulders.

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.