The traffic signal signs sometimes display them (some as W, some as N), and sometimes not. Even when they don't for Grand Avenue, they will display them for the intersecting street(s). Furthermore, the signblades commonly associated with residential areas never display them for Grand Avenue, despite always showing them for intersecting street(s).

Source: aerial imagery (Bing)

Okay, I modified the intersection based on my best interpretation of your response. How does it look now?

Yes, kind of. After a user downgraded trunk 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗯𝘀 to primary, I decided to sort of recreate the trunk roads while forming a coherent network. That same user then told me that these roads are actually (relatively local) arterials rather than being important cross-country/state highways.

Why did you downgrade these roads to tertiary? They're wider and have bike lanes at either end, which (so far) has been my indicator that a road should be tertiary instead of residential/unclassified.

First of all, why did I not see this notification earlier? Gmail has failed me again... And second of all, alright, I'll go change all of these back to secondary, since Desert Foothills is approximately the only "major" thouroughfare west of the 215. (Maybe that will change in the future, but for now, it and maybe Sky Vista Drive and Park Drift Trail are the only thouroughfares in that area.) Speaking of low density, mostly residential areas, I did find a sign at the intersection of Orrock Street and Chickadee Avenue proudly proclaiming that the area will contain a mixed-use area, which is always better for people anyway. How would the classification of these roads change if they were in a mixed-use area verses an almost-entirely residential area?

boundary=land_area is only used 158 times and is not even documented on the wiki. What does it even mean?

General consensus says that highway=trunk is not exclusively for expressways. Speaking of, I'm 99% (no pun intended) sure that I added expressway=yes tags to SR 99. Ending the trunk designation at that location would leave a stub. However, since SR 99 appears to be an important statewide route, I felt like trunk would be the best way to tag SR 99 until I-5.

That's very weird... Which of these will "survive" the construction phase? I was genuinely surprised that OpenWeb, after displaying data from Jan. 31, 2026, showed me that Far Hills got involved in the construction... OSM has a policy of "not mapping temporary features" (technically, everything's temporary, but that's besides the point), but I'm unsure if these new roads would fall into that category or not.

Wait, what? Why? How come?

Okay. When you said, "highway=proposed can quickly be changed to highway=construction once construction actually starts," I think I see what you mean now. Back in Summerlin West, I mapped some portions of Alta Drive, Park Drift Trail, and Grand Park Boulevard as highway=proposed based on a community map of the area. Then, once I saw some construction work being done on what appears to be a very close alignment for what I put as highway=proposed, I changed them to highway=construction. Is this what you meant by that?

I believe I reverted a changeset I made that removed the names.

No, I did not realize that at all. I didn't see any special turn restriction relations that would have given me information to act differently. I will revert this changeset as well (maybe you can create the appropriate turn restriction relations to convey that information?).

I wasn't sure where Beck Street began and Highway 89 ended. It appeared to be along the incomplete at-grade intersection with the frontage road, but I wasn't sure.

Also, shouldn't ref=US_89 be enough? Or does the highway specifically need something in name=* for addresses to work properly?

Alright 👍 (comes back 6 months later)
So, uh, this area (and these roads) have changed a lot in half a year. Using BetterOSM.org, I can overlay these older edits with the new ones I made earlier today. You were right in that most of the proposed highways don't match with what's been constructed (except for one, which weirdly does match the older edit). You we also right in that Evelyn Brook Street wouldn't link directly to the CC 215 off-ramp; that appears to be me misinterpreting the proposed map's lines and attempting to match it with the ways already in existence. However, it does come close, ending at an entrance to an apartment complex. You were also right about 5th Street not being routed through federal land: a much newer parcel map (courtesy of OpenWeb) shows it skirting near the boundary before snaking its way northeast to Sandstone Ranch Parkway before curving northwest to end at what appears to be an extension of Grand Teton Drive. Tule Springs Parkway is STILL at a stub, and the right-of-way visible on Esri and OpenWeb shows that it just suddenly terminates near the border of Tule Springs. (I could vaguely trace out a circle from OpenWeb and Esri, but I don't know if this is the final/intended product.) Critically, however, a parcel map shows intersection plans for Tule Springs Parkway and 5th Street. The problem is that, from its current eastern terminus, it would have to go through Tule Springs before meeting up with 5th Street – which, as you've stated, is highly unlikely. What appear to be extensions of Grand Teton Drive also go through Tule Springs, but upgrading it to tertiary was the only way I could keep the continuity between Sandstone Ranch Parkway/Park Highlands Boulevard, Losse Road, Tule Springs Parkway, and 5th Street as tertiary roads. What should be done with this newly found information?

I'm not sure you understood what I said. I didn't tag that specified portion of US 1 as an expressway because it was divided. I tagged that portion as an expressway because it 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 has grade-sepatated interchanges with HEFT and lacks at-grade intersections elsewhere along that corridor (minus the hotel). 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 were the reasons I tagged that portion of US 1 as an expressway.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it's tagged as SR 5 instead of FL 5. As far as I know, the rest of the United States (except Utah) uses (postal abbreviation) + number for tagging state highways. Just scrolling around the rest of Florida reveals that it also uses its postal code for state highways (i.e., Orlando). 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 is what I meant by "consistency." Since the format of (postal abbreviation) + number (instead of something like SR or SH) seems to be the default in the United States, I figured that was the consensus (in the U.S.) for tagging state highways.

Consistency with (AFAIK) the rest of the US. Also, the rest of Florida uses FL xx instead of SR xx, so this is also consistency.

1. All I did was change unsigned_ref=SR_5 to unsigned_ref=FL_5.
2. The portion between 344th Street and 7th Street has grade-separated interchanges with HEFT. Since that portion has no other at-grade intersections (except for the Baymont hotel), I interpreted these two facts (combined with the fact that this is a trunk road, is divided, and is at the end of a freeway) as tagging that portion with expressway=yes and access_control=partial.
3. I only removed the portions I tagged as highway=motorway_link, such that the freeway would begin at the convergence of the two on-ramps, rather than starting it at US 1.

I mostly began doing this in California, Nevada, and Arizona since that's my "local" edit area. (I-15 goes through all three, which is how I ended up in Montana.) I'm not sure what the consensus is nationwide, but since the few instances where I have done it haven't received any pushback AFAIK, I assumed that it wouldn't be controversial.

Merged 𝙪𝙣divided highways! *quintuple facepalm*