Adamant1 (2022-02-01 20:35:10+00:00): <I want to start by saying to Adamant that I do think local perspective is valuable and important, and I respect your knowledge of the area.

Thank you. I appreciate that. 

<after reading your descriptions of local circulation patterns (and judging for myself), I agree that Market St/CA 273 is best classified as primary, not trunk, and I don't think many disagree.

I haven't seen anyone else in this discussion besides you has say that Market Street is best classified as primary. I think that would be a good step forward though. 

<But I also think it's important to come up with a consistent, nationwide way of tagging roads

I agree with that. It might seem like it but I actually support the proposal and having a consistent way of tagging things. Not just roads. My disagreement has nothing to do with the merits of the proposal or consistent ways of tagging. It purely has to do with if trunk is the appropriate tag to use on these two roads or not. That's it. I don't think we should use a tag in situations where it shouldn't be just for "consistency." Ultimately all someone had to do from the start of this was state in a clear way that makes sense why Eureka Way/Market Street should be tagged as a trunk road without all the other nonsense and I can almost guarantee you I probably would have agreed and gone on to other things. 

<But I also think it's important to come up with a consistent, nationwide way of tagging roads, and to do this we need to incorporate the perspectives of those outside our local regions.

A lot of what is mapped around here comes from incorporating perspectives outside of the local region. So that's not my issue. The inability of people who on the other side of this to state clearly and concisely why their way of tagging is better then the status que is my issue. It shouldn't be that hard to just say why something is better and leave it at that without trying to attack someone or go off on side tangents in the process. That's literally my only problem with this whole thing. That and the inability of certain people to listen what I'm saying. In the meantime I don't think the existence of a proposal or wider consensus about something means people have carte blanche to act like pushy, manipulative, douche bags. Nor should "consensus" lead to mob rule. 

<So I don't think anyone has "authority" over the map, and of course no one ever can: the map is editable by anyone. All we can do is work to establish uniform practices across the country/world and build consensus for them.

I never said I was an "authority" unfortunately I'm blocked from editing the wiki until November and I don't know how to use the mailing list or whatever the other platform is. So this is the only place that I can voice my opinion about it. Otherwise, I would probably have had this discussion on the Wiki in a less immediate fashion. I was actually sort of aware of the proposal before this and had planned to check it out when I was un-blocked but the mass-edit kind of forced me to discuss it now. So in no way am I against consensus building or whatever. 

<its regional importance makes trunk a classification that contains more information for map users in my opinion.

I don't disagree with that. Except I don't think roads are completely consistent, uniform things. One part of a road might be regionally important and another might not be. Like with Market Street, it isn't regionally important because most people just take i5. Whatever Market Street connects to on the other end doesn't really change that equation. 

<to reiterate I don't think any of these are authoritative, but they do qualify as some evidence in support of the road's regional importance.

Going by regional designations (NHS, Caltrans FCs, the Strategic Interregional Corridors) was actually something I was suggest, as I think it's better then extremely subjective criteria like "importance." I didn't see it mentioned in the proposal though, but at least if this was determined by Caltrans FCs or similar then there wouldn't be any room for the arguing, manipulative nonsense, or risk of other random roads being tagged as trunk roads at some point in the future by a rando editor who think's their local primary road is the "best" route in town. In that vain I'd probably be fine with 44 to 299 (east/west, whatever) being tagged as a trunk road. Since it does have official designation and I think there's other merits to it, for instance it does get some heavy truck traffic, but I'm not going to concede the same on Market Street. Even if it does have the Caltrans designation or whatever because it just doesn't fit with anything else that would qualify it as a trunk road.