Adamant1 (2022-01-25 05:50:51+00:00): <It’s no longer in “draft” status, having been discussed extensively in multiple places including the talk-us mailing list.

Originally you said there was no discussion on the mailing list about it because the mailing list is clunky or whatever. So which one is it? was it discussed on the mailing list or not? Also, if it's no longer in draft cool, but the Wiki articles you linked to say they are drafts and that's what I'm going off of. The articles shouldn't say they are drafts if they aren't. 

<It seems to me that you're upset you haven't been involved with discussions

I'm not upset that I haven't been involved in the discussion. Involving local mappers in re-tagging and proposals to do re-tagging is a standard. One that I have been told many times to follow. There's zero reason others shouldn't follow it. I'm just requesting that you abide by the standards that everyone else, including me, are told to abide by. I could really give a crap about it outside of that. If I really cared that much I would have just re-tagged the roads and reported you. I do care that some of your tagging is wrong though. "Why you mad brah" isn't really a good way to respond to someone telling that you mapped things wrong. 

<Establishing consensus in areas where there are only a low single-digit number of active, local mappers is going to be difficult and I wouldn't consider a wiki vote of three people authoritative either.

I didn't say the consensus about it needed to be formed through a formal vote. There's no reason someone couldn't have sent me a message and made me aware of the proposal so I could have participated in it though. Most people know I'm the only/main mapper north of Sacramento. In the interim I don't really care what SteveA's opinions about it is. He doesn't dictate how things are mapped in my area anymore then I dictate how things are tagged in his. Especially considering he's thrown extremely childish tantrums any time I've so much as opened a note in Santa Cruz. So he can piss off about it. That said, I don't think the answer is to just decide how to tag things north of Sacramento based on zero input from anyone up here either. There should be a good middle ground. Otherwise there will be these types of issues. 

<My reasoning for this highway being 'trunk' is that it is more important than neighboring primary roads.

I don't really have a problem with how you re-tagged the highways. My main issue with your re-tagging of Eureka Way, Market Street, North Market Street, and other non-highway roads. It's ridiculous to tag Market Street the same as 299. They are different roads and don't serve the same purpose. The first bullet point in your proposal of when to tag something as a trunk road is to vague and would lead to most or all primary roads in Shasta County being re-tagged. Which is just stupid. Maybe it works for the Los Angeles area or somewhere highly populated, but that's not the Redding area or the roads I've mentioned. 

<Do you disagree with tagging important inter-regional highways as 'trunk'? 

As I've said, I don't have a problem with "highways" being tagged as 'trunk'. I have an issue with you tagging roads that aren't highways as 'trunk' just because they connect to highways or whatever. It should go without saying that not every multilane road that connects to a highway is automatically a trunk road. Especially if the highways are also being tagged as trunk roads, because your getting rid of the distinction between a road that is a highway and ones that aren't. There's a reason 299 ends at Eureka Way and it should be reflected in how the roads are tagged.