OK thanks for looking into it. In the future if you use mapillary, it might help to put mapillary or street-level imagery in the changeset source

Hi there, it seems like you might be using old imagery to make these changes? These are not zebra markings, they were correct before.

Reverted in 177664768

Just a heads up, I ended up reverting most of these and some other changes nearby. I really don't think all these dead end roads that only lead to adjacent properties should be tertiary, even if they are wide. Tertiary to me implies some ability for through routing, in other words you should be able to go along a tertiary road to connect between areas.

That makes sense! Yeah like in the diary piece from the changeset comment, I think painted centerlines are generally a good metric in CA, because the standard is to add one if the road gets a certain level of traffic. But they tend to be less good in a few edge cases: they often get painted on curvy or especially wide roads regardless of traffic count, or in areas where there's a lot of local traffic but little through traffic. I think all three might apply here and in other parts of SD too. Thanks for addressing these issues when people raise them, it can be tricky stuff!

Add weekend variant to D96 and add stops to relation in Bethesda

In case it's interesting, a few years ago I wrote up my general rationale for how I classify roads in urban areas: @willkmis/diary/399345. A lot of it was based on my edits to the road network in LA, so a pretty similar development style. It's not gospel or anything, since this area in OSM is pretty subjective at the end of the day, but maybe there are ideas in there that are useful.

I really don't think a lot of these roads should be primary. Point Loma Ave is stop-sign controlled, one lane each way, and traffic along Cañon doesn't even have a stop sign at their intersection. All of these aspects indicate to me that it probably shouldn't be primary. In general I think most of the old classifications were a better representation of the road network in this area, not that they were perfect. How did you decide what to upgrade here?

Hey Yushclay, I was looking at this and some other changes around (see also changeset/176153902) and I have to say it seems to me like many of these streets are overclassified. Walking around this area, most of these roads you've upgraded to tertiary seem like they're not really for through traffic: you'd only use them if you were accessing the direct area. Not every road in a business district should be tertiary, that makes the road classifications too flat and obscures which roads are actually used for through traffic IMO. What was your rationale for upgrading these?

I don't really understand why you removed the building tag here, POIs are commonly tagged as both the building and what's inside of them. And if you want to separate them, please at least draw a separate building=roof way rather than deleting valid data.

Hey, I noticed you edited the end point of this freeway, which has been the subject of edit wars in the past. My understanding, per osm.wiki/California/Map_features#Highway_classifications, is that freeways ends should be mapped to agree with the signs. There are big signs announcing the freeway start at 4th St (//www.openstreetmap.org/node/9523487420) and end at Lincoln (node/9523487423), more similar to how the road was mapped before. It also matches where the road undergoes a significant downgrade from 65mph to 45mph speed limits and other construction issues that I think are better tagged highway=trunk + expressway=yes. Could you explain why you decided to upgrade these segments to motorways, and do you have a more authoritative source than wikipedia that would justify overruling the ground truth?

Yes, but none of those seem to me to be population centers of regional importance, nor are these roads part of a network of expressways, so I don't really think they meet the criteria of osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#Trunk. I'd say that in other parts of CA and the US, roads connecting freeways to colleges, retail districts, and midsize military facilities are typically highway=primary.

I wasn't sure if it was meant to be this: node/8254222443, which is a lot closer, but also in a location that might be hard to survey...

I'm not really sure I buy Rosecrans/Lytton/Barnett as a trunk, what important destinations do they lead to?

Please also don't reabbreviate addresses, they should be fully spelled out like they were before (K Street Northwest, not K St NW)

I should add, a lot of discussion of highway classification in the US goes on on the OSMUS Slack, you're welcome to join there! https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/

The #highway-classification and #local-california channels are probably most relevant here

I don't understand how this road could be tagged differently in either direction. Hw=trunk should denote importance to the overall road network, not access or whether there are driveways or something.

Hi Yushclay, please note that this exact road is documented (as "CA 1 north of I 105") in the wiki: osm.wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines, and has been subject to switches in its tagging in the past. I stand by my assessment that the road's importance undergoes no change south of La Tijera, only a build change, hence hw=primary + expressway=yes is appropriate. Why did you upgrade it to trunk?

Hi Yushclay, I can't say I agree with tagging this road as highway=trunk + expressway=yes. It seems like you've been on a flurry of reclassifications across SoCal, can you explain what logic you're using here? These seem to violate the agreed consensus on the classifications page (osm.wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines) by signficantly expanding the definition of highway=trunk in California to include nearly any "built-up" road.

Ah makes sense, thanks for fixing!