piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Minh Nguyen (2022-01-29 02:36:13+00:00): There isn’t much riding on the classification of these downtown streets other than a typical rendered map being able to communicate that 299 connects to 44. At some zoom levels, a renderer other than osm-carto could quite reasonably include trunk roads but omit primary roads. That’s a stylistic decision OSM should be able to accommodate; to assume otherwise is to cater to osm-carto specifically.

Even if forming a continuous path of trunk roads along Eureka/Market and Shasta/Tehama looks arbitrary when zoomed way into the downtown area, I think it’s a reasonable tradeoff compared to leaving a gap within the city limits at a lower zoom level.

The questions about route membership or motorist preference are just starting points for discussion, not determining factors, and they only really matter at a county or state scale, not this hyperlocally. A router might prefer Market over California due to the road classification, but traffic conditions would probably have a bigger impact anyways.
btwhite92 (2022-01-29 02:41:51+00:00): (Lots of "quoting" words here - I don't mean to imply anything when I do this aside from that these words are a bit fuzzy and could be replaced with a handful of other similar terms and therefore shouldn't be read strictly)

I feel like this analysis of traffic patterns through Redding is hyper-fixated on local Redding traffic, which is missing the point of classifying 'trunk' roads as "main inter-regional long-haul routes" (or some other equivalent language). It's true of every city and town that the "best" way to get in/out of town could involve many different roads depending on where you're headed. What's being proposed here is that, the way you would take to travel between Eureka and Reno (specifically for this discussion) should be tagged 'trunk', in general with more weight being given to higher quality, higher traffic roadways, as well as towards roadways that are part of a state or national highway network (to discourage tagging local arterial "shortcut" roads that are technically faster but not part of a major route). This is a world-wide mapping project and I'm really not understanding what this language regarding who the "target audience is here" is supposed to imply.

Traffic counts are useful for determining regionally what roads are "more important" relative to others but don't necessarily mean anything outside of that context. It's true of many major highways - certainly true in urbanized areas - that the majority of the traffic carried on them is for local or regional trips. This doesn't take away the importance of a route for serving as the "best" or "main" way between two significant population centers. As an example edge case, US 95 is a very quiet conventional highway that a solid portion of the daily traffic is related to local agriculture. However, it is unambiguously the "best" way between Reno/Carson and Boise, so it is promoted to 'trunk' under this tagging scheme. If we classified it based on the trips that the majority or plurality of the traffic on the road is using it for, it'd barely qualify for 'secondary'.

I understand there are many routing idiosyncrasies that are unique to Redding, but this situation looks similar to that of Salem, OR, which has the connection between OR 22 and Interstate 5 following a sequence of urban surface roads promoted to 'trunk', which may not necessarily be the "best" way for trips from Salem to the west depending on where you're at, but *is* the way you would recommend out-of-town traffic passing west through Salem to take.
Minh Nguyen (2022-01-30 02:48:12+00:00): A local community of one does not own any part of the map; that’s not how OpenStreetMap works. You may also recall that I’ve previously defended your right to make edits in another part of the country that one local mapper disagreed with, in a changeset discussion that got heated very quickly. Decisions about how to map should be based on the merits, not the identity of the mapper. A local mapper can inform the discussion with much-needed local knowledge, but that’s different than being a final authority.
stevea (2022-01-30 02:59:29+00:00): Quite a number of false allegations here by Adamant1 (again), is what I'll say about that.  Though, maybe if I skate into "being generous territory" I give him the benefit of the doubt and say he has a misunderstanding or is offers us confusing language.  I honestly don't understand much of his approach to mapping anyway, despite what might look like years of concerted efforts at large numbers of edits.  Good luck to you, Adamant1, I wish you no ill will.

I thank Minh for pouring oil on these turbulent waters, hopefully calming them.  (That's a metaphor for de-escalation, frequently necessary with one particular participant here).  OSM is indeed a meritocracy (of mapping skills, sometimes of writing / communication skills); OSM is not "who you know."
btwhite92 (2022-01-30 03:01:34+00:00): It doesn't seem like this is going to be a productive discussion at this point. Leaving the tagging as is since it was the closest thing to an agreement that could be reached so far. While again I am sorry I didn't reach out to you first before making these changes, and I do respect and appreciate your work in the Redding area (one of the better mapped areas in the US imo), I strongly disagree with the sentiment that any area "belongs" to any one mapper in the sense of having an authoritative/final say, be it you *or* SteveA.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-30 03:05:40+00:00): OSM is a collaborative project.  In no uncertain terms I say, nobody "owns" an area.  We're all in this together.
stevea (2022-01-30 03:06:04+00:00): To be clear, I do not claim to be authoritative in OSM.  I merely do my best, perhaps "being a good example" as a high goal I do strive to achieve.  I do so because I see other mappers strive to do their best, not be authoritative and "set a good example by being a good example."  It works.

Thanks to all participants here, and I still have hope that some consensus can be achieved on these topics.
btwhite92 (2022-01-30 03:09:40+00:00): To be clear here, I didn't mean to say that I think SteveA is acting authoritatively necessarily. I've never edited in Santa Cruz nor do I know anything about the Adamant1/SteveA drama arc. Just that, if A1 felt like they weren't treated fairly, that they would use that as motivation to act better rather than use it as an excuse to do the same to others.
Adamant1 (2022-01-30 04:17:21+00:00): <OSM is a collaborative project. In no uncertain terms I say, nobody "owns" an area. We're all in this together.

BTW, ridiculous comments are exactly why I'm taking the stance on this whole thing that I am. On the one hand it's a community based project, we're all this together, blah blah blah. But then on the other me talking about this for two days, explaining how the roads work here, and saying why I think a couple of them shouldn't be tagged as trunk roads is derided as me "owning the map" or whatever. screw that. I'm not the one owning anything here. I haven't even re-tagged the damn roads, but somehow I'm owning the map by discussing it and giving my opinion. Whatever dude. Have fun with that.
btwhite92 (2022-01-30 04:23:01+00:00): >I've literally said 299/44 could be kept as trunk roads, and made multiple recommendations where the best place to not tag 299 as a trunk anymore would be.

Okay, this is all that's being proposed. CA 44 through downtown as 'trunk', and CA 299 west of Market as 'trunk' as well. If this is acceptable to you, then the classification debate is resolved, and there are no other proposed changes in this area.
Adamant1 (2022-01-30 05:02:02+00:00): <Okay, this is all that's being proposed. CA 44 through downtown as 'trunk', and CA 299 west of Market as 'trunk' as well. If this is acceptable to you, then the classification debate is resolved, and there are no other proposed changes in this area.

I'm fine with how things are currently tagged. If that means whatever your saying, then fine. If not then it's also fine. As long as we're done with the discussion about it.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-30 15:06:06+00:00): Right now there's a glaring gap in the trunk network where CA 299 abruptly changes classification at Buenaventura Blvd.  That's not an acceptable situation and is at odds with the wide community acceptance of tagging highway classifications based on the connectivity importance of roads.  CA-299 needs to either continue as trunk until it meets another trunk or motorway, or else get downgraded all the way back to Blue Lake.
Adamant1 (2022-01-31 00:51:09+00:00): Uuuhhh, to bad? btwhite92 seems fine with it and they we're the one that made the edits in the first place. I'm also fine with it. I'm not super interested in your opinion at this point either since your only participation up until now has been to accuse me of ownership. So maybe take the lose and don't act condescending next time. Like I've said already there's plenty of times where people tag things against the consensus because that is what's best in their area and we all have to suck it up. So there's zero reason you can't. Especially since it seems like me and btwhite92 have come to an agreement about it. I think how things are tagged now is a good middle ground between following the new tagging proposal and not doing something that is taking it to far or in a way that would sent a bad precedent for road tagging in this area. That said, I'm perfectly willing to revisit how things are tagged around here once the issues I've brought up with the proposal are worked out. If you want the roads to be re-tagged in this area beyond what they have then I suggest that's how you purse it. Improve the proposal so it's not vague, could apply to most roads here, and then I'll be more then willing to revisit it. I rather not beat a dead horse on this anymore for the time being though. Trying to force things on this end with my involvement when you could settle it on yours without me by ironing out the kinks in the proposal is worthless though.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-31 02:57:09+00:00): With all due respect Adamant1, you don't get to dictate how the map is made just because you live nearby, and Bradley undid his changes because you bullied him into it.  The way we classify highways in the US has evolved based on extensive discussions and is a collaboration of many, many, mappers working together to find common ground.  The principles are well-established in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance
I'm sorry you find it vague.  Consider it an opportunity to improve the guidelines for California to make it less vague.
Adamant1 (2022-01-31 03:27:16+00:00): I don't think there's anything respectful about saying we are all in this together as a community Etc. Etc. and then to accuse people of ownership or dictating things just because don't agree with you about something. Local mappers (includin me) are as much a part of the community as you, btwhite92, or anyone else in this discussion. Respect, community, and togetherness is a two way street. One your disregarding here by talking down to me. 

Outside of that in no way did I bully Bradley into undoing anything. He agreed that he would re-tagged things based on the discussion we had about it. I didn't force him to. He's an adult and makes his own discussions. Which also extends to his ability to say he felt bullied by me if that was the case. You speaking for him is like he's a child and can't stick up for himself if need be is rather ridiculous. Really, something a bully who doesn't have respect for others in the community would do. Spare me the white knight virtue signal. People can speak for themselves.  

The only thing I have to say outside of that is that I'm perfectly willing to find common ground and I did with 299/44. I've also made it clear that I'm fine with the other roads being re-tagged once the guidelines are ironed out. Your the only that is unwilling to find common ground here with your unwillingness to accept that and your continued pushiness about it. You can say the principle are well established, but everyone here accept you has been clear that it's still a proposal and can use improvement. There's nothing wrong with waiting until said improvement is done for every road to be re-tagged. 

In the meantime I can't even get a clear answer in this discussion about what roads should be tagged as trunk roads or why. It's extremely laughable for you to act like there's a community wide acceptance of how to tag something when you can't even get two or three people in a changeset comment to have a coherent, unified response about it. Like I said, I'm more then willing to revisit this once you can get your crap figured out. I'd appreciate it you stopped with the insults, double speak, and other nonsense in the meantime though. Your all smart people, including SteveA, I have faith in your ability to clarify the proposal. So go do it.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-31 03:34:20+00:00): > In the meantime I can't even get a clear answer in this discussion about what roads should be tagged as trunk roads or why

It's spelled out in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Trunk roads are "the most important non-motorway roads that provide principal, long-haul connections between population centers of regional importance."

Plain and simple.  The task thus is to determine which cities are of regional importance and to determine what the most important routes are between them.  Those are the trunk roads, and that's the determination that's being made by each of the state-specific classification guides.  Yes, there is some squishiness to which cities are "regionally important" but that's what we've been hashing out.

So the decision space is this: is city regionally important?  If yes - make sure the most important roads between them are trunk or motorway.  If no, they should not be connected by trunk roads.
Adamant1 (2022-01-31 04:12:14+00:00): <Trunk roads are "the most important non-motorway roads that provide principal, long-haul connections between population centers of regional importance."

Sure dude. I've never disagreed 299 or 44 are the best connections "between" cities of regional importance. Market Street and Eureka Way are both "in" a city of regional importance though. They aren't "between" them, and there's multiple routes within the city to get to 299/44/other cities besides Eureka Way or Market Street. None of which are the "best route." If it was a one simple matter of there only being one road that everyone took in every situation I wouldn't really give a crap about it. The problem is though that like 60% of the roads that aren't residential or service roads in the Redding area could technically be tagged as trunk roads if we went with the current definition in the proposal. Which wouldn't be useful.  I don't see what your struggling with about that. 

If you can come up with a clear "A + B + C = Tag as trunk road" tagging scheme that doesn't have the potential to lead to most of Shasta County being re-tagged as trunk roads then cool. I'm fine with that. As things currently are though there's to much potential for a lot of roads here to be re-tagged as trunk roads that shouldn't be tagged that way. 

Even if we agreed on what "the most important route" was, that doesn't mean the average mapper will. I can guarantee someone will eventually come along and be like "well, this is the road I take so it's important" and then re-tag some random primary road going through town to a trunk road. They do the same thing with parks. Since the tag for parks is extremely ambiguous. To the point that every 4 months or so I have to explain to some rando from up here why their back yard shouldn't be tagged as a park. It's never enough to just say "because the community says it can't be" either. Let alone is some kind of existential, philosophical  discussion about the meaning of leisure like your expecting me to have here with the whole "importance" thing a good way to resolve a tagin dispute. It just comes off as pretentious. 

So I'd really like this to clear from the beginning. At least with roads that go through town and aren't directly 299/44. I don't care if you want to turn this into a personal pissing match and I'm not going have a philosophical discussion about the meaning of vague, subjective terms like "importance" either. Get over it and move on.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-31 04:26:31+00:00): Great, I'm glad you agree that Redding and Eureka are regionally important cities.  Specific clarification about importance and connectivity are described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance -- no Philosophy degree needed.

The only question really on the table is the specific routing through the city to connect CA-44 and CA-299.  Since they directly intersect at Eureka and Market, the most obvious candidate would be for trunk routing to follow 299 until it hits 44 and then to continue on along 44 until it hits the motorway stretch.  That would be consistent with the connectivity principle as well as the stated principle in the guideline which prefers minimizing route changes.

I would encourage you to read through the link above in detail as it really covers a lot of the questions you're posing here.
Adamant1 (2022-01-31 08:38:30+00:00): <Great, I'm glad you agree that Redding and Eureka are regionally important cities. Specific clarification about importance and connectivity are described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance -- no Philosophy degree needed.

I read through the guidelines a few days ago and to me it sounds like Eureka Way/Market Street could just as easily be tagged as primary roads. 

If we look at California/Draft Highway Classification Guidelines it says "Trunk roads carry principal "long-haul" connections between major population centers in the absence of a motorway." Market Street doesn't principally act as a "long-haul" connections between major population centers in the absence of a motorway. Maybe Eureka Way, does but I don't think so because "long-haul" traffic between Redding/Eureka is extremely minor, to mostly none existing. Like I said in another comment usually "long-haul" trucks will go to Eureka by way of 101. 299 is more akin to 36 or similar  highways. Which aren't currently tagged as trunk roads and I assume are going to stay that way. Also, 299 doesn't connect to Eureka anyway. It connects to Redwood Highway, which connects to Eureka through Arcata. Arcata isn't really regionally important city. So 299 doesn't connect regionally important cities like your acting like it does.  

Outside of that the guideline says "A roadway being part of the National Highway System, designated as an "Other Principal Arterial" or higher on state functional classification maps, or being part of a Strategic Interregional Corridor may be indicative of a trunk road, but not necessarily conclusive." From my perspective your attempt to treat this like it's cut and dry or that the guidelines are 100% clear that Market Street/Eureka Way should be tagged as trunk roads goes against that. I'm willing to concede that to someone not from the area and purely looking at the map Market Street/Eureka Way might "look" like trunk roads to them, but it's not that simple IRL for reasons that I've already explained ad nauseum.
Adamant1 (2022-01-31 08:48:11+00:00): Really at this point I could probably make a good argument for why 299 shouldn't be tagged as a trunk road. I'm not going to because it's not something I super care about, but I could.
Adamant1 (2022-02-01 09:29:37+00:00): BTW, I was reading over the talk page for the proposal early and I think Imagico's comment is particular relevant here. It's also exactly what I've said repeatedly was my problem with the proposal and how the roads are being tagged. I think everyone would benefit from reading it.

 "Just wanted to note that this proposal as is almost fully lacks locally verifiable criteria for the classification of roads. Instead it contains weasel words in abundance (importance, usefulness, best, high/medium/low population density) and refers to computable yet practically not mapper-verifiable criteria (properties of a connection in a routing graph)." 

I completely agree with his sentiment that the proposal is mostly made up of weasel words that are practically not mapper-verifiable criteria. It seems from the discussion that ZeLonewolf was no better at addressing the problem there then he has been here though. From the looks of it neither was Brad. To bad. Arguments like this are bound to happen when one side sticks their fingers in their ears and refuses to listen to feedback. Better luck next time. Personally, I'd love to see a workable standard for roads in California but as things are right now this one clearly isn't it.
ZeLonewolf (2022-02-01 10:29:09+00:00): Thanks for the feedback.  The importance-based classification system that has emerged as a national consensus is supported by dozens of mappers that have collaborated on writing this documentation.  I'm sorry that you find this insufficient, but I'm not seeing any willingness on your part to constructively participate.  Since you've stated several times that you don't care either way, I'm going to go ahead and implement the consensus classification.  Thanks for the discussion.
Adamant1 (2022-02-01 11:56:43+00:00): I constructively participated in this discussion. Which is why 299 and 44 are still tagged as trunk roads. So I have zero clue what your talking about. I'd really love to know what you've constructively contributed though. Literally all you did in this discussion is accuse me map ownership, bullying, and then ignore the points I made. If anything your the one bullying and trying to own the map by implementing the changes without bothering to have an actual, civil discussion about it and despite btwhite92 changing the tags on the roads. This isn't the way to resolve the dispute. I said what would and my request was pretty reasonable.
Adamant1 (2022-02-01 12:00:32+00:00): There's zero reason you can't just listen to the feedback, improve the issues with the proposal, and then we can discuss it again at that point.
Adamant1 (2022-02-01 12:07:03+00:00): Or as another option I could report btwhite92 to the DWG for making an un-discussed mass edit based on a half baked proposal and then having you and other people badger me to get your way about it.  According to btwhite92 he didn't declare it on the mailing list beforehand and I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the Wiki. So I think have a good case to make that this went against the mass-edit guidelines. It's your call though. Really I should have just reported him in the first place. I was  trying to resolve this in a more constructive, reasonable way though. Clearly that was the wrong approach.
Adamant1 (2022-02-01 12:11:16+00:00): Although I put the fact that it wasn't the right approach on you more then I do btwhite92. He was actually pretty reasonable about it, you, not so much.
Adamant1 (2022-02-01 12:22:35+00:00): In the meantime it's hilarious that you say there's a national consensus about this based on the opinion of dozens of users when there's literally only 4 people who have commented on the proposals talk page, one of them who disagreed about it, and there isn't that many more who have article. Mainly you and Minh. There was even objections to the proposal on the US-Talk mailing list. Even btwhite92 said there was never a formal proposal. So your assertions of a consensus classification is vapid nonsense because your incapable of having an argument.