I've reverted this change in changeset/176658877.

Sorry, but I'm going to remove it from the ref=* tag. It's just unnecessary clutter. And while Caltrans certainly has been upgrading CA 99 to Interstate highway standards, do you have any actual evidence that Caltrans is actively working on giving CA 99 an Interstate number? If not, then this is definitely just roadgeek speculation.

I'd strongly encourage you to move the Future I-7/I-9 to the fut_ref=* tag. Having it in the ref=* tag just adds clutter to the map. Also, calling this Future I-7 or I-9 is pretty much just roadgeek speculation imho.

Why did you change the freeway ramps at I-95 exit 66 from motorway_link to trunk? It is standard practice in the US to tag all freeway exit ramps as motorway_link, even if they carry a highway route designation.

Thanks for your contributions!

However, I noticed you mistakenly tagged long stretches of the R Line as being a bridge even though it is not on a bridge structure. I fixed it for you, but try to be more careful about this in the future. Thanks!!

You do realize that the highway=motorway tag is for freeways with no at-grade intersections, right? This stretch of Hwy 19 has at grade intersections and should not be a motorway.

Why did you tag the segment of light rail between I-5 and the Mt. Baker Tunnel as railway=rail instead of railway=light_rail? I'm assuming this was just a mistake, right?

I changed this back to how it was before. It is standard practice to tag a road as a bridge, even if there's a separate polygon for the bridge.

It seems like you made this an admin boundary by mistake.

Is this actually under construction, or is this yet another proposed highway that this user changed to under construction? I'm not familiar with this area to know whether or not this road is actually under construction or not.

Not sure if a road that closes in winter should necessarily be a trunk road. Was this agreed upon by other users in Colorado?

I don't see it listed here: osm.wiki/Colorado/Highway_Classification#Trunk_Roads

It appears that when you removed the bicycle access, you also changed the access=* tag to no, which implies that the road is closed to the public. I'm assuming that was a mistake on your part so I am going to remove that tag from this stretch of road.

Interesting, I didn't know about this. I don't agree with the Forest Service's decision to do this, but whatever. Thanks for the response!

Why did you change FS Road 65 to FS 6500? All the signs say 65 not 6500.

No problem, thanks for the reply. I'll go ahead and fix this.

Why did you change parts of WA 112 to primary while leaving other parts (including several bridges) as secondary? Was this intentional or a mistake?

Access=no implies that a road is closed, not that pedestrians are prohibited. If you want to add a tag to indicate that pedestrians are not allowed on a road, use the tag foot=no.

Is this train ferry still there? If it's historic and doesn't exist anymore (especially since the Pennsylvania RR is long gone), it should be added to OpenHistoricalMap instead of here on OSM.

Again, this should not be tagged as motorway due to the presence of at-grade intersections. Please change it back to trunk. Thanks!!

Again, this section of the TSP should not be tagged as motorway since it has at-grade intersections. Please change this back to trunk. Thanks!