piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Adamant1 (2022-01-24 23:21:45+00:00): Thanks for providing the links. I do wonder why your already doing mass edits based on draft articles that haven't been approved. At least not from what I can tell from reading over them. While I respect and agree with you that the mailing list isn't a great communication platform, it's the channel where mass-edits have to be announced before they take place. conversations that take place in Slack aren't at all authoritative. I have zero urge to discuss this there when it is still in the planning phases and likely only involves people south of Sacramento. I don't think their opinions about how things should be mapped in Shasta County where I mainly map should hold any more weight then it would if I went to Los Angeles, re-tagged a bunch of roads, and then was like "well, whatever, it's all California." I could really care less how people in El Cajon want to tag their roads. I care how roads are tagged here. Which is why I'm discussing this in a changeset comment. Also, I'm currently blocked from editing the Wiki. So that's not a venue that I have the ability to discuss things in. 

What I'd like to see is your edits in this area reverted at least until the proposals are not drafts, approved, and there's some buy in about it with the mapping community in California outside of a couple of mappers from Southern California. Plus there should clearly be a better review process before the re-tagging is done. I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of this is wrong based on my experience traveling the roads here for the last 30 years. 

It should go without saying that roads shouldn't be mass re-tagged to highway=trunk in the automated and indiscriminate way that you seem to have gone about it about here. The existence of a discussion on Slack and few draft proposals doesn't give you cart carte blanche allowance to make these edits either.
Minh Nguyen (2022-01-25 04:01:55+00:00): The overall national reclassification project is documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance . It’s no longer in “draft” status, having been discussed extensively in multiple places including the talk-us mailing list. An important aspect of the project is that each state gets to adapt the guidelines to local conditions while adhering to the same overarching principles. Half the states have begun this process, and a few have already completed the reclassification.

With respect to California’s guidelines, the motorway and trunk guidelines have been relatively uncontroversial until now, compared to other states. However, the documentation is still marked as a draft because we haven’t filled out the guidance for classifications below trunk, which require considerably more discussion. That said, it isn’t too late to participate in crafting these local guidelines. It’s unfortunate that you’re unable to participate on the wiki right now, but most of us participating in this process are subscribers to the talk-us list, even if we happen to use Slack more heavily.

Bradley has moved ahead with the trunk reclassification process up here in part to clean up highly questionable classifications that remote mappers like Fluffy89502 implemented over the past year. (In the Bay Area, where I’ve followed suit, that resulted in returning highways like 17 to how they had been for years.) But it also included upgrading some roads to trunk based on the national guideline’s connectivity principle. Now would be the time to voice any objections to this overall national approach on the mailing list or somewhere similarly visible.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-25 04:10:19+00:00): This edit is broadly consistent with the principle of tagging the principal, long-haul routes between cities of regional importance as trunk, regardless of physical quality of the road.  As the principal, long-haul route between Eureka and Redding, CA-299 clearly qualifies as a trunk road and is consistent with the consensus that has emerged in the US for classifying highways after months of national discussions on this topic.
Adamant1 (2022-01-25 05:57:39+00:00): <s the principal, long-haul route between Eureka and Redding, CA-299 clearly qualifies as a trunk road and is consistent with the consensus that has emerged in the US for classifying highways after months of national discussions on this topic.

As I said in my other message, I don't care if 299 is tagged as a trunk road. The connecting roads in the middle of town that were re-tagged to trunk roads aren't long-haul routes in any meaningful way. Except that they are forced to take the roads to get to where they are going, but the same could be said for 99% of the roads in the downtown Redding area. Like plenty of long-haul trucks use Cypress Avenue and Churn Creek Road and they also connect to major highways, but no one is going to re-tag them as trunk roads because of it. At least I hope they aren't. Same goes for Lake Boulevard, Oasis Road, Shasta Dam Blvd, and nauseum. All of those would qualify as trunk under your definition, but it would be completely worthless and wrong to re-tag them as such.
Adamant1 (2022-01-25 06:03:17+00:00): Like how is Market Street somehow magically a trunk road but South Market Street isn't one when there's literally no difference between them? If anything going by how the draft defines a trunk road South Market Street is more of one then Market Street. Neither should be tagged as a trunk road though.
stevea (2022-01-25 06:54:47+00:00): Hi Bradley and others:  From his california/Draft HCG (linked by the US 2021 HCG) wiki, I understand Bradley to mean groupings of California as he describes them there (admittedly "arbitrarily," to use his word).  Though I and my mapping do seem to fall "largely" into Bradley's "central" region of California, having deep roots in southern California and having travelled a great deal of Humboldt, Mendocino, Shasta, Trinity, Modoc and nearby "more farther northern" counties of northern California, I am quite familiar with Bradley's "northern" region as well.  So, in short, I am very much a California-wide mapper, though I do focus on "my" various areas.  These are broad strokes and our language use here can be difficult as we do that.  No offense meant to anybody as they characterize somebody's statewide- (or "part-statewide'") mapping, and none taken.

However, I do defer to Adamant1's apparently deep familiarity with Shasta County, Redding and environs and leave mapping those areas to him and others, even as I might occasionally map in those areas (emphasis on occasionally) myself.

WRT the discussion-at-hand regarding "trunk," I am very much in "watching mode."  Thank you to everybody for positive contributions to wiki, changeset comments and the map itself.
Minh Nguyen (2022-01-25 06:58:07+00:00): Here are some threads where the new national guidelines were discussed at length:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-May/thread.html#21018
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-May/thread.html#21099

What hasn’t been discussed on talk-us so far is the *California edition* of the new guidelines. For your benefit and Steve’s, I’d be in favor of keeping the talk-us list in the loop as we develop the rest of that edition. However, there’s no way to keep at least some of the discussion from taking place on Slack, where there’s a much larger group of mappers assembled.

While there isn’t unanimous agreement everywhere about the new national guidelines, there’s clearly momentum behind them. In addition to considerable discussion on this topic on the mailing list and Slack, multiple data consumers are in the process of making changes to better accommodate the new tagging.

In particular, expressway=yes explicitly distinguishes the highways previously tagged highway=trunk under the old standard. This has freed up highway=trunk to be used in a manner more consistent with functional classification principles, which sometimes includes running trunk down surface streets downtown.  That said, it’s quite reasonable to quibble over N. Market St. in Redding. This is an example of where we don’t have all the answers yet and are counting on locals like you to help us refine the guidelines.
stevea (2022-01-25 07:04:53+00:00): Certainly, discussion is and will take place in Slack.  I choose not to participate via that medium and am appreciative to learn of "California edition" momentum trickling to / being "cross-posted" (from Slack?  OK) to talk-us.  Maybe a talk-california mail-list could be born, but traffic (still) seems too low to fully justify that (now).

I applaud the momentum, discussion and serious movements towards good consensus (regarding trunk, et al re highway classification).  This is difficult and good work, and exactly as Minh says, there remain some rough edges.  That's to be expected and doesn't seem terribly contentious (nor does it need to be).  Rome wasn't built in a day.
Adamant1 (2022-01-25 07:12:50+00:00): <However, I do defer to Adamant1's apparently deep familiarity with Shasta County, Redding and environs and leave mapping those areas to him and others

Thank you SteveA. I appreciate that. 

<That said, it’s quite reasonable to quibble over N. Market St. in Redding. This is an example of where we don’t have all the answers yet and are counting on locals like you to help us refine the guidelines.

I'm glad your willing to say we can quibble about it. I'm more looking to have btwhite92 re-tag it and similar roads in the area to how they were originally tagged then I am wanting to turn this into a bigger issue that will involve multiple people, venues, and the guidelines being modified. There's zero reason we can't just defer to local mappers and call it good there like is done in plenty of other situations without the extra none sense. The dog pilling by multiple people who weren't the ones that made the edits included. No disrespect to the people involved, but I'm not in this to have a discussion with 3 different people at the same time or in relation to multiple issues. btwhite92 can speak for themselves and fix their own edits if need be.
Adamant1 (2022-01-25 07:15:13+00:00): <This is difficult and good work, and exactly as Minh says, there remain some rough edges. That's to be expected and doesn't seem terribly contentious (nor does it need to be). Rome wasn't built in a day.

Maybe Rome wasn't built in a day, but the re-tagging occurred in one ;)
stevea (2022-01-25 07:18:55+00:00): That's a fair observation!

Consensus can be difficult to achieve, but it isn't impossible.  Again, I am cheered by seeing as much progress as I do.
btwhite92 (2022-01-25 16:40:48+00:00): W.R.T. to Market St/etc north of Eureka, I bumped these up to trunk based on signage EB at Eureka and Market indicating destination NB I-5 traffic to take Market north. I'm happy to defer to your local knowledge here and will bump these back down as soon as I can (currently only at my computer a couple hours a week). My intent wasn't to trample on your knowledge of the region and I'm sorry I didn't reach out to you before making some of these changes. With that being said, they are easily reversible and ultimately prompted the discussion that needed to be had. If we're in agreement that CA 299<->44 is acceptable as 'trunk' then there's no disagreement as far as tagging goes, with the understanding that roads north of Eureka need to be bumped back down to primary.
willkmis (2022-01-25 18:19:50+00:00): It sounds like things are already getting ironed out in a constructive way, but as one of the other authors of the California guidance I just wanted to reach out. Thank you for providing feedback Adamant and stevea, I definitely understand being wary of major edits in areas you've worked hard to curate and improve. I think in general, how to connect the ends of routes to and through the urbanized areas they connect is one of the thornier issues with this highway classification project, as it can lead to up-classifications of roads due to their regional importance, even if they don't seem much more locally important than surrounding primaries. I hope we can begin/continue collaborating to make sensible classifications that allow us to match both the spirit of a consistent, connected state-wide trunk network and the reality of on-the-ground experience. I'll let others speak to the specifics of this tagging, as I don't have much to add that hasn't been addressed (I've been up this way a few times, but it's not an area of personal expertise)
Adamant1 (2022-01-25 19:29:58+00:00): <I'm happy to defer to your local knowledge here and will bump these back down as soon as I can (currently only at my computer a couple hours a week). 

Thanks. That's fine. It doesn't need to be done tis instant or anything.

<If we're in agreement that CA 299<->44 is acceptable as 'trunk' then there's no disagreement as far as tagging goes, with the understanding that roads north of Eureka need to be bumped back down to primary.

I'm in agreement about 299 and 44. Eureka Way should be bumped back down to what it was before you re-tagged it though. It's not super clear where 299 ends but I'd say at least at east of Buenaventura Boulevard it isn't 299 anymore. I'm fine with it being a trunk road west of that though.
Minh Nguyen (2022-01-25 19:48:41+00:00): Has the section of 299 within the city limits been relinquished to the city? Lately the state has relinquished a number of state highways within city limits, but I can’t find any mention of that happening to 299 in the legislative record. Have they removed the 299 shields along Eureka Way or something?

Besides, highway classification isn’t tied to route membership, and a major reason the community is bothering with this reclassification effort is to decouple trunk from construction quality and connect it through urban centers.
Adamant1 (2022-01-25 23:57:52+00:00): <Has the section of 299 within the city limits been relinquished to the city?

Not that I'm aware off, but I don't think ownership should be a good metric to decide tagging. Like Cascade Boulevard between Redding and Shasta Lake is owned by the state because it's part of the old for highway 99, but the ownership is extremely superficial and shouldn't really have bearing on how the road is tagged IMO. 

<Have they removed the 299 shields along Eureka Way

As far as I know there aren't any shields saying it's 299 east of Buenaventura Boulevard. There's two road signs that say the middle lane is for 299 East at like Court Street and South Market/Market, but that's it. As a side to that North Market is tagged as both 299 and 273, but no one here really considers it to 299, 273, let alone both at the same time. 

<a major reason the community is bothering with this reclassification effort is to decouple trunk from construction quality and connect it through urban centers.

I don't have an issue with that in cases where the highway goes through the city, but Redding's roads are pretty F'd and the roads that go through the downtown core aren't really "highways" in any way that matters. 

Just to pose another example, the industrial zone north of town along Caterpillar Lane has heavy semi truck traffic and it connects to North Market Street, but most of the time heavy trucks are just going to take Caterpillar Lane to I-5 and not bother going down North Market Street to 299 so they can get on I-5 from there. Let alone are they going to waste the 30 minutes going down town and dealing with all the nonsense at the bottom of Market Street. Unless they specifically have to. In the meantime North Market Street is mainly used by people existing I-5 that have business on that side of town or live in the neighborhoods around there. The road being owned by Caltrans doesn't really have any bearing on that. I think that would be different in a big city where it's not mixed with suburbs, retail, and goes  through the core of town without multiple stops and branching streets though. There isn't even a consistent speed limit for more then like a block for most of it.
Minh Nguyen (2022-01-26 00:17:15+00:00): I only inquired about the status of 299 as an aside, because I thought you were claiming that 299 ends more or less at the city limits, which would’ve required correcting the ref tag and route relation. In California, state routes only consist of state highways (which are owned by the state). Unless Eureka Way and Market Street have been relinquished to Redding or Shasta County, 299 still goes through Redding uninterrupted, even if no one prefers to refer to it as 299.

Anyways, the point I was trying to make is that, according to the new guidelines, highway=trunk doesn’t necessarily mean “highway” any more than highway=primary or highway=secondary does. I don’t think anyone is claiming Eureka Way or Market Street to be a highway in the sense of a high-speed or limited-access highway. Perhaps that could be made clearer in the documentation?
Adamant1 (2022-01-26 06:28:08+00:00): <Unless Eureka Way and Market Street have been relinquished to Redding or Shasta County, 299 still goes through Redding uninterrupted, even if no one prefers to refer to it as 299.

I mean I guess you could say highway 99 still goes through Shasta Lake because it's still owned by Caltrans, but like I said it's meaningless. The fact that know one refers to Cascade Boulevard as highway 99 is one small part of why, but I'm not claiming it's not highway 99 just because some local randos don't call it that. Obviously it's more complicated. 


< I don’t think anyone is claiming Eureka Way or Market Street to be a highway in the sense of a high-speed or limited-access highway. Perhaps that could be made clearer in the documentation?

Perhaps it could be. The reason I brought up the speed limit thing is because btwhite92 said one of the reasons he re-tagged Eureka Way and Market Street is because the have  faster traffic then near by ones and more passing. Which  isn't really the case. Like on some parts of Cypress Avenue and Churn Creek Road you can go 35 or 40 and pass people. If the claim is that Market Street or Eureka are partly trunk roads because you can go 45 on them and the speed limit for most main roads in town is around the speed then I don't think that's a valid reason to tag those two roads as trunk roads. Which is why I brought it up. Ultimately I don't think speed determines what's a trunk road and what isn't though. At least on it's own, but the same could be said all the criteria in the proposals for what constitutes a trunk road. As I've said the criteria in California/Draft Highway Classification Guidelines of trunk road "as being divided, having relatively high speed limits, and/or limited access" is meaningless in this area. 

The sentence "Under this framework, roads classified as motorway and trunk together comprise a network of the best roads connecting all important population centers" is just nonsense.  Every road connecting parts of Redding together is the "best" road, whatever that means. I suggest qualitative wording like that be removed from the guidelines. Same for "relatively high speed limits and limited access." That's just my two cents. Otherwise there will probably be more of these types of discussions in the future. Or maybe not since the mapping community is so low in most of America, but I don't think that no one has complained about is a good excuse for vague standards. That said, maybe those things are clarified somewhere else in the proposal. I must admit I didn't read either one that extensively. So if either does say what makes a road "the best road" then disregard what I said about it.
Minh Nguyen (2022-01-26 07:30:38+00:00): This is good feedback. In the passage that you quoted from the guidelines, the operative word is “usually”. It’s referring to the character of the overall road from end to end as a means to keep every long-distance highway from being upgraded to trunk, but it isn’t intended to be a rubric for classifying, say, a block-long stretch of road. I attempted to clarify this point (for consistency with the national guidelines) in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/2251291 , though it’s frustrating that “road” and “highway” are such overloaded terms.
stevea (2022-01-26 08:06:24+00:00): <though it’s frustrating that “road” and “highway” are such overloaded terms.>

I agree that this is a crux of difficulty here.  Keep up the excellent dialog, everyone, this is good stuff!
btwhite92 (2022-01-28 22:18:28+00:00): I dropped the surface roads east of Buenaventura back down to 'primary'. I would like to try to reach a resolution however on what the "main" way is connecting the interstate/freeway system to CA 299 west of Buenaventura, since the goal of this tagging project is to develop a coherent network of 'trunk' roads in CA by figuring out these gaps. If you were taking a trip between Chico or Reno through Redding to Eureka, what is the way would generally consider the best way to get through Redding on to CA 299? I understand that downtown Redding is a mess and exactly what way is "best" depends on where you're coming from and what you're driving, but it seems fairly clear to me that, speaking very generally, one would recommend traffic to take Shasta/Tehama and Pine/Market one-way couplets to Eureka Way (CA 44 route).
Adamant1 (2022-01-28 23:24:20+00:00): It really depends. Most of the time if your north or south of town and want to go to 299 you take I-5 to Shasta Street/Pine/Eureka Way. That's really the main way to get downtown. Like I've gone from Shasta Lake or south of town to Whiskey town thousands of times and rarely if ever do I or anyone I'm traveling with take North or South Market. Once in a while North Market, but not South. People who live on that side of the river in the Downtown area or in the subdivisions above Caldwell Park use North and South Market all the time though. Either that or if they a little further north they take Keswick Dam Road to Iron Mountain Road to 299 and skip the downtown stuff altogether. That route actually gets a fairly good amount of traffic.  Eureka Way is actually sort of a lot of the time. A good portion of it's traffic comes from Shasta High School and the Mary Lake area. Or closer to town people coming and going from Court Street. 

I'm not going to claim to know how some rando from the bay area prefers to go through town, but my guess is that will take I-5 and stay away from 299 west altogether since like 80% of our out of town traffic has to do with Bethel Church and it's on the east side of town. Bethel people usually stay around there and the Mt. Shasta Mall area. Rarely if ever do they ever go downtown or west of it for anything. 

Don't take this as insult but I think your way over estimating things based on a way overly simplistic framework that probably makes zero difference IRL. I can guarantee people taking a trip between Chico or Reno through Redding to Eureka the aren't the target audience here or who's mainly driving through Redding, let alone using OSM to do it, and it would be massively stupid to cater the map to them. Even if they were the target audience, I'm pretty sure they give zero thought about what type of road Eureka Way is tagged as in OSM. Where as it's helpful to locals if not every road beyond a basic residential street or driveway is tagged as a trunk road. Literally no one in the real world cares what division of the government owns the road either. But even if they did there's ownership tags for that.
Adamant1 (2022-01-28 23:57:29+00:00): BTW, as a side to that, most of time traffic on 299 is people commuting into town for work from Weaverville/Hayfork for the west or Palo cedro/Shingletown/Burney on the other side. Only a slightly small amount of 299s traffic is people traveling through Redding to go to Eureka. Even people from Redding don't go to Eureka a super amount. Like 299 between Weaverville and Eureka is pretty dead a good portion of the time except for holidays and logging trucks that are coming from the Shasta-Trinity National/Six River National Forest area. There isn't a super large amount of heavy goods trucks going that route though. Usually they just go to Eureka by way of the 101 from the bay area.