The initial point of this was that CA 91 Hist was decommissioned by the state, but could not verify that it was still signed as CA 91.
But I recently realized I was wrong for doing that since cities do the work of maintaining CA 91. So I'll get back to reverting the road numbers.

Hi, thanks for sharing the community thread for those concerns. But I am reluctant to revert them back to single carriageways as unlike the examples used in that thread, there isn't mixed traffic where the MTS Trolley is sharing spaces with vehicles. there isn't mixed traffic where the MTS Trolley is sharing spaces with vehicles; it is a mode-separated corridor where the tracks act as an exclusive right-of-way.
Reverting them to single carriageway would also misrepresent rail crossings at the ends of those corridors by placing the road centerline directly between the rails, creating 'false positive' crossing nodes at every intersection.
And when that consensus was made in the community thread in 2020, Tesla FSD (full self driving) was released afterwards using OSM data, not an issue for street navigation UNLESS vision sensors are impaired and driver is not properly supervising. Which mean that would lead to the vehicle leaning more heavily on it's mapping services, and making it single carriageway would nudge a car under FSD into trolley traffic.
Also, it didn't reflect the 25th St & Commercial trolley station in the median, so single carriageways in that part doesn't apply.

Edit: *residential roads with painted street centerlines into tertiary;
Other residential roads that have no residences/home addresses are changed to minor/unclassified, and residential roads to alleys if it is access between buildings/properties but not likely to have addresses attributed to the road.

Yeah, I'm mostly moving some residential roads with painted street centerlines into either: tertiary, alley, or minor/unclassified. And if it's more multilane and/or more tertiary roads connect to the road, it may be secondary. But feel free to undo some of the ones you greatly disagree, you seem to be doing this for much longer. My edits could just be taken as a suggestion, just looking to move some roads away from residential roads if traffic circulation seems to encourage some traffic patterns. If you're local, to the area, I've also been making "deepen road classification" edits in southern OC, so feedback encouraged.

Sounds good, I can recalibrate my tertiary classification from here on out.

Hi willkmis, feel free to follow your rationale, it's better than the previous road hierarchy that was here. But yeah, 2-3 weeks ago, I was trying to find a good template to standardize the road classification in San Diego County and I had set non-residential road traffic as a indicator to either upgrade it to tertiary or downgrade to minor/underclassified road. I currently like your diary piece, it takes into account what I doing now, as I was using (southern) Orange County as my model for primaries and secondaries. And am currently using street centerlines for tertiaries depending on each municipality's use of it (which can be too generous, but that doesn't apply here).

It look like I forgot to revert a couple of these streets back to residential a couple weeks ago. I'll go revert Wall St, Silverado St, and Exchange Pl.

Hi Willkmis. I have since removed some of the overclassified since after someone let me know. My rationale (or impression I had) at the time was that roads with non-residential traffic usage should be up to tertiary or down to minor/unclassified road. I was also using (and still using) painted street median markings as a major factor in whether I upgrade it to tertiary as that is one of the explicit indicators of a collector/tertiary road in many of the cities in San Diego County, with roads without street median paint markings are implied minor roads that drivers would need to consider traffic from the other direction. At the same time, another editor was removing spurs of secondary or tertiary roads, so I tried to be more vigilant about connecting them to leave no spurs. And hence, it resulted in a flatter road-hierarchy. Same thing with the other changeset, except I did not consider median paint at the time.

Yep, let's do that then. Hope your proposal makes it through.

Corridor is trunk road on Google and Bing maps as well.

From the direction of the I-5 hey lead to military bases Marine Corps Recruit Depot and Naval Base Point Loma. It also leads to the tourist destination Liberty Station. The corridor may also be used by students and faculty of Point Loma Nazarene University.

Hello mdeveney, it seems that you've changed the relation type from Boundary to Administrative Boundary. While the reservation is very much an administrative boundary, it will not render Pala Reservation as indigenous reservation or imply sovereignty.
To return it to reservation boundaries, you must flip the relation back to Boundary and change the boundary "Type" to aboriginal_lands.
However it also seems that some of your boundaries are broken as there are lines without a boundary relation (relation/13886462#map=13/33.36258/-117.05435), I'll see if I could send you a photo to show you what I mean as well.
I'd probably fix it myself, but since it seems you represent the Pala GIS Department, I'll probably leave the discretion to you.
If you still want to emphasize Administrative Boundaries, I suggest using the Pala / Páala village administrative boundaries (relation/18405183#map=14/33.36957/-117.06345) if they overlap with the reservation as you can stack multiple boundary relations on top of each other. If not, I believe your department knows best where those boundaries are. Let me know if you need any assistance.

Yeah, I'm debating on what to do here, but I'm leaning on removing trunk tags from Pacific Hwy east of Barnett Ave and tag the rest of Barnett Ave and Lytton St to Rosecrans. I did have a DM with the suggestion to connect the trunk roads and not leave it as a spur, so I'm also considering tagging Camino del Rio West and Rosecrans St to the junction with Lytton St.

Yeah, I guess I went too far for this one. I'll undo it.
The logic I was going with was expressway being mostly controlled access with and little to no contact with the opposing direction outside of intersections.

Ah yeah, I tagged that one as trunk before I learned about the 2022 Hwy Classification Guidelines. I'll undo this one.

Yeah, I'm starting to realize that OSM US is really serious about emphasizing importance over built environment. I was under the impression that trunk road tags were good for expressway road edge cases in addition to road importance rather than road importance alone. I'll reverse some of it to primary at least.

Hi Joseph,
Most of your points are correct and still stands. However, this corridor is very much used by commuters from communities in the north in Mira Mesa and Rancho Penasquitos traveling to and from Kearny Mesa which is the 2nd largest employment center in San Diego County behind Sorrento Valley and ahead of Downtown SD.
But as for why It is also the only local non-motorway road north of Kearny Mesa that goes north-south so local traffic funnels through Kearny Villa Rd between Kearny and Mira mesas, and this is especially important during rush hour as it absorbs I-15 parallel local traffic. If there were more local roads cutting across MCAS Miramar in the parallel direction, I might agree with you. But due to it's importance in the network and controlled-access expressway nature, I was inclined to tag this as trunk. This is very much not a typical primary road as it is performing above the use of primary road.
As per osm.wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines, this urban expressway can be tagged as trunk.

Personal disclosure: I was a commuter on this road, as well as my coworkers. So I recognize that I may be biased based on personal experience or lack-of personal experience commuting on I-15. Neither trunk, primary, or motorway tags do this road justice; but I believe trunk is probably the best tag case.

Clarification: Ted Williams Parkway trunk tagging should not proceed east of Pomerado Rd where Twin Peaks Plaza and Discovery Isle Preschool access is not controlled.
Besides that, Ted Williams Parkway was a former right of way proposed to be an extension of CA-56 motorway, and was planned with that possibility in the region's road network.

"I'm just letting that stop there since that's the first traffic light after Rancho Carmel Dr. I'd say my OSM editor philosophy leans towards what matches what's been built as opposed to importance when it comes to road stubs so that the symbology on the map matches the driver expectation on the ground, so I feel it's should be fine to let it look awkward. Between Shoal Creek and Pomerado Rd is a flex between trunk and primary on the ground, but definitely not Twin Peaks Rd like we saw in the original. But I can agree that it's not as important to the network, just that the symbology doesn't match with what's on the ground. Network importance would matter to me after Shoal Creek Dr." My comment from the other changeset.

I'm just letting that stop there since that's the first traffic light after Rancho Carmel Dr. I'd say my OSM editor philosophy leans towards what matches what's been built as opposed to importance when it comes to road stubs so that the symbology on the map matches the driver expectation on the ground, so I feel it's should be fine to let it look awkward. Between Shoal Creek and Pomerado Rd is a flex between trunk and primary on the ground, but definitely not Twin Peaks Rd like we saw in the original. But I can agree that it's not as important to the network, just that the symbology doesn't match with what's on the ground. Network importance would matter to me after Shoal Creek Dr.