Minnesota/Minnesota highway classification/Original Motorway & Expressway Proposal

This is an archived copy of the original proposal for the handling of motorways & expressways in Minnesota. This text was captured from the main Minnesota highway classification page on 1/24/2022. DO NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THIS PAGE.

This proposal was discussed in January 2022 and the summary of the discussion and the conclusions can be found at this discussion summary page.

As part of the archiving process and the processing of the discussion conclusions, the main wiki page has morphed into solid guidance and is no longer considered a proposal. (This statement applies to motorways and expressways, not to the other highway types.

The headings below contain the original section numbers, for easy reference back to the main page.

4.1.1 Motorways (general guidelines)

In general, Minnesota follows the US guidelines. Please review section 2.1 Motorway. The text here simply summarizes the general US guidance for motorways and does not provide any different guidance. The general guideline is that the highway is either a signed Interstate highway or it possesses a set of physical characteristics about grade separation, on/off ramps, at-grade intersections, divided carriageways, and that it is designed for high speed for long distances. That wiki (in section Exceptions and Borderline Cases) addresses how to address gaps in Interstate Highways. There are no such gaps in Minnesota.

Motorway islands

The US Exceptions section also defines and addresses how to handle "motorway islands". The US guidelines give the states some leeway in how to handle them. While it provides general guidance, it provides each state the ability to provide its own guidance provided there is discussion and consensus about the approach. Please review the US guidelines. A discussion has taken place and is captured in the Minnesota talk page, question 2 (Q2). Following is a straw man proposal that will be firmed up after it is decided that there is a consensus. Discussion of this will also be captured in Q2 on the talk page.

Proposal:

If a motorway island is part of an otherwise trunk highway (both of these are based on the current OSM tagging) then the motorway island should be kept as is as long as it meets the US physical definition of a motorway. The rationale here is that the highway departments of the state and/or local governments have determined that traffic volumes and/or traffic safety considerations have warranted the upgrade to the physical properties of that section of the highway. The premise also is that these islands have been correctly mapped by OSM mappers. This section provides additional guidance.

Where does the motorway island end? Consider each end of the island independently. For each end, as long as the other physical attributes apply, the end of the motorway island will be delimited by the first at grade intersection encountered. If the first at grade intersection for both sides of the divided highway is the same, then that is where the end should be marked. But what do you do if one carriageway has an intersection that is not shared by the other carriageway? If you applied the rule to each carriageway independently then one of motorway's carriageways would be longer than the other. The consensus in a discussion in the #highway-classification channel of slack seems to be that the longer one should be truncated to match the shorter one.

Example of where to end a motorway island.

The above example of the end of a motorway island (MN 36 East where it intersects with CR 15), as rendered by overpass turbo, shows the East bound and West bound carriageways ending at the same place (B). The mapper determined that the motorway "broke" at the driveway abutting the East bound carriageway and decided to end the West bound carriageway at the same "point". The West bound carriage way is not "broken" until point A, but the guidance proposed above says that point B is the correct place to end both sides of the dual carriageway highway (the motorway).

Motorway spurs

There is no clear guidance about "motorway spurs" in the US guidance other than the network of highway=motorway or highway=trunk roads "should collectively form a coherent network of interconnected roads without dangling spurs or 'islands' of disconnected roads." The following is a proposal on how to handle motorway spurs in Minnesota.

Proposal

As for motorway islands, motorway spurs should be kept as is as long as they are part of an otherwise trunk highway. An example is a motorway leaving the Twin Cities metro area that peters out and becomes a trunk highway until it reaches some regional center. If the part of the highway "beyond" the motorway spur should be trunk and the spur meets the physical criteria of being a motorway, then it is appropriate to leave the motorway as mapped.

If there are motorway spurs that do not meet the above criteria (i.e. they do not morph into a trunk highway that connects to a regional center) then they should be discussed individually in the #local-minnesota Slack channel or the talk page as a possible exception to this overall guidance.

Where does a motorway spur end? Use the same guidance as for motorway islands.

Interstate non-motorways

Proposal

In Minnesota all Interstate highways (35, 35E, 35W, 535, 90, 94, 394, 494, 694) seem to be all mapped as motorways, although there are some gaps in the correct mapping and in one case very poorly mapped (I-535). So there are no cases of Interstates that are not motorways. But there are some Alternate or Business Interstate segments. They should be mapped correctly as for any other highway in the area. They may be trunk, primary, etc.

4.1.2 Expressways (general guidelines)

The US Highway reclassification page has a section mostly devoted to expressways titled Exceptions and Borderline Cases. The guidance provided there seems to apply well in Minnesota. Note that as of December 2021 the expressway=yes tag has only been used on a single highway segment for a total in Minnesota of 19.4 kilometers.

Proposal

Minnesota will follow the US Guidelines for expressways.

Refer to the specific route by route proposals listed below.

4.1.5.1 Motorways (TC metro general guidelines)

Proposal

Motorways in the metro area will follow the general guidance described above. They will not be treated specially in the Twin Cities metro.

4.1.5.2 Expressways (TC metro general guidelines)

Proposal

Expressways in the metro area will follow the general guidance described above. They will not be treated specially in the Twin Cities metro

4.2.1 Motorway detailed proposals

Proposal

This section provides details of what should be done for all highways in Minnesota that are either currently tagged highway=motorway or in the views of this project, should be. These details are based on the careful inventorying done in section 2.2 Motorways, above. For all of the highways listed below mappers should verify that the highways sections currently tagged as motorway actually meet the general guidelines given in section 4.1.1 Motorways. Consider for each section of each highway whether it ends in the right place. This includes especially considering the end points of motorway islands and motorway spurs. Additionally any incorrect gaps should be fixed. A gap can be formed due to not tagging the segment with highway=motorway or not having the segment correctly part of a route relation for that highway. All highways named below should be carefully reviewed for all of these things. The table provides some indication based on the inventory for which highways are known to have islands, spurs or gaps. The inventory process may have missed something so it is important for mappers to carefully review the entire highway route.

The following chart provides a simple list of the motorways to be carefully mapped according to the guidelines. Notes follow to explain the columns in the table.

Class	Highway	Network	Ref	S I G	X	!
US	I 35	US:I	35	G		!
	I 35E		35E	G
	I 35W		35W	G
	I 535		535			!
	I 90		90	G
	I 94		94			!
	I 394		394			I
	I 494		494	G
	I 694		694	G
	US 2	US:US	2	S I G
	US 8		8
	US 10		10	S I G	X	!
	US 12		12	S G
	US 14		14	S I G
	US 52		52	S I G
	US 53		53	I G
	US 59		59
	US 61		61	I
	US 63		63	S		!
	US 71		71			!
	US 169		169	I		!
	US 212		212	S
	US 169 Bus	US:US:Business	US 169 Business	I
MN	MN 5	US:MN	5	G
	MN 7		7	I G
	MN 13		13	G		!
	MN 15		15	I
	MN 23		23	I
	MN 30		30	I
	MN 36		36	S I G		!
	MN 37		37	I
	MN 47		47	S
	MN 51		51	I G
	MN 55		55	S I
	MN 60		60	I
	MN 62		62	S I G
	MN 65		65	I
	MN 77		77	S
	MN 100		100
	MN 101		101	I
	MN 252		252			!
	MN 280		280	S
	MN 371		371	I
	MN 610		610	G
County	CR 34 (Hennepin)	US:MN:Hennepin	34
	CR 21 (Scott)	US:MN:Scott	21	S		!
	CR 101 (Scott)		101	I

Notes

1. Network is the network identifier used in the route relation for this highway
2. Ref is the reference number used in the route relation. For example: network US:US ref 169 refers to US Highway 169
3. S I G indicates whether this highway has a S(pur), I(sland), or G(ap)
4. X indicates that this highway probably has a segment that should be changed from motorway to trunk with expressway=yes
5. ! indicates that this highway has a special concern to be handled. Those special concerns are listed in the next table
   

Special concerns

Proposal

The following chart details the special concerns to be addressed for some of the highways listed below. Also included are two special areas of concern in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Special concerns

Highway	Concern
I-35	I 35 has a number of issues in Duluth including apparent use of older aerial photos and gaps caused by not hooking correctly to I-35 route relations.
	I 35 does not connect to I 535 correctly (Duluth)
I-535	I 535 is not totally mapped (Duluth)
I-94	I 94: near Monticello, should the MnRoad Mainline bet tagged Motorway?   posed question to #highway classification channel
I-394	I 394: where is W end?   posed question to #highway classification channel
US-10	US 10 should not be motorway starting at Ogden Ave at-grade intersection (it is just N of Carver Ave on ramp; consider whether it should be an expressway or not, and if so, where does it end?
	It seems like the connection from I-94 to US-10/US-61 should be motorway links, not motorways. Look carefully at this and decide one way or another.
	US 10 between the intersection with Ramsey Co 96 and I-35 W and also Ramsey Co Rd 10 between I-35 W and Ramsey Co Rd H has to be carefully classified. In some stretches motorway is used when it should be motorway link. In other parts expressay=yes seems more appropriate.
US-63	For a lot of US 63 in Rochester, while the road seems typed correctly, it is missing its US 63 relation
US-71	US 71 Business relation in has a ref=71 but should have a different ref to distinguish it from US 71 proper. See for example US 169 Business (US:US:Business, ref US 169 Business; US 71 Business in Wilmar should be a motorway link, not motorway.
	in Bemidji, the portion of US 71 near Bemidji looks correct but portions of the primary part of US 71 near the interchange with US 2 are not properly part of the US 71 relation
US-169	US 169 (Belle Plaine): at least part of the motorway has at grade intersection so at least part of it is not motorway
MN-13	MN 13: W segment tagged as motorway defiinitely is not (a dual carriageway with no interchanges between two adjacent at-grade intersection)
MN-36	MN 36: at Ramsey/Washington County line there is a gap. The E end of the W most segment should end at the Geneva Ave intersection. The W end of the E most segment should start where it does now. This is leaves a tiny gap between the two motorway segments that is regrettable but mapped correctly per our guidelines.
MN-252	MN 252, south segment; convert all motorway S from 65th Ave until it joins I-94 near the River (around 61st ave N). Convert to motorway link. This results in only I 694, I-94/US52 being motorways. All others are links. The only reason to go S from 65th is to link to those motorways or MN 100.
	MN 252, north segment: from 85th Ave N, convert motorway to link. The only reason to go N from 85th is to link to MN 610. This decision supported by Freeway Entrance sign just N of 85th. Also note there is a "252 Ends" sign not far from 85th (in order to establish end of 252 in route relation)
Scott 21	CR 21 (Scott): from signalized intersection at County Road 18, there are several issues: not all segments are part of the CR 21 relation; there is an at-grade intersection at Hanen Avenue; it seems better to classify everything N of CR 18 intersection as motorway link instead of motorway. Except for the at grade intersection at Hansen, the only purpose of CR 21 is to link to other motorways.
Minneapolis	in downtown Minneapolis, determine where the N end of Hiawatha Avenue is; then determine where the N end of its motorway segement should be. There is at least one issue: the ramp from S 8th St is motorway: should be link
St. Paul	In downtown St Paul it seems like a thorough review should be made of the use of motorway vs motorway link. It looks like some of each may be wrong. It seems like all through carriageways of I-94, I 35E should be motorway, almost all others should be links.

The following chart details some additional special concerns added to the proposal on 1/19/2022

Additional special concerns added 1/19/2022

Highway	Concern
US-10	US 10 between Anoka and Elk River appears to be neither a motorway or expressway due to frequent RIRO intersections.
US-169	US 169 between Princeton and Zimmerman is about 4.5 km long (on each side) and has 7 RIRO driveways, one at-grade intersection and one interchange. It does not appear to be either a motorway or expressway.

How route concurrency might suggest an order of handling

Proposal

There is often the overlapping of highway routes where two different routes use the same carriageways (for example in the north metro I-94, I-694 and US-52 are all co-located for a short stretch of highway). It makes some sense to fix the longest and/or "most senior" routes first. By accomplishing them, the lesser routes will often be easier to complete. A rough meaning of "most senior" is Interstates followed by US routes followed by Minnesota highways, followed by county highways. The following chart tiers or groups routes in a possible order. Whether mapping is done in this order or not is not mandated. So this part of the proposal is is optional. In fact it could be removed if there is a consensus to leave this out. It is just provided for consideration by mappers when implementing the guidelines proposed above.

Tier	Highway	Sub to	Peer with
1st	I 35
	I 90
	I 94		US 52
	US 52		I 94
2nd	I 35E	I 94, US 52	US 12
	I 35W	I 94, US 52	US 12
	I 494
	I 694	I 94, US 52	I 35E, US 10
	US 10	I 94, US 169	I 35E, I 35W, US 169
	US 12	I 94, US 52	I 35W
	US 14	I 90, US 52
	US 169		US 10
3rd	US 2	I 35
	US 61	I 94, US 10, US 12
	US 212		MN 5, MN 62
	MN 5	I 494	US 212
	MN 23	I 35
	MN 55	I 94, US 52,I 35W	MN 62
	MN 60	US 14, US 169
	MN 62		US 212, MN 55
	MN 100
	MN 371
4th	I 394	US 12
	US 59	I 94, US 52
	US 63	US 52
	US 71	US 2, MN 23
	MN 30	MN 60
	MN 36	I 35W
	MN 47	US 10
5th	I 535		US 53
	US 53	I-535	MN-37
	US 169 Bus		CR-101
	MN 37		US-53
	CR 101 (Scott)		US 169 Bus
6th	US 8
	MN 7
	MN 13
	MN 15
	MN 51
	MN 65
	MN 77
	MN 101
	MN 252
	MN 280
	MN 610
	CR 34 (Hennepin)
	CR 21 (Scott)

Notes

1. Tiers are ordered from highest to lowest. Higher tiers could be done before lower tiers.
2. Within tiers, highways are listed in the same order as in the first chart of all motorways.
3. "Sub to" means that this highway is co-located with a highway in a higher tier. This information may prove useful.
4. "Peer with" means this highway is co-located with a highway in the same tier. This information may prove useful.
5. Blank cells indicate there is no co-location with other highways listed in this chart.

4.2.2 Expressway detailed proposals

Proposal

The highway segments currently tagged with expressway=yes do not meet the criteria for being an expressway. Specifically there are numerous at grade intersections and there are no grade separated interchanges. The tagging should be removed.

The highways currently identified as "maybe" actually also meet the criteria of being motorway islands. The proposal being made is to tag each of those segments as highway=motorway.

Bottom line: there are no road segments in Minnesota that meet the requirements of being labelled expressways. The following chart adds a column to the one already provided above summarizing the proposal.

network	ref	type	location	interchanges	length	tag	proposal
US:US	10	trunk	Elk River @ MN 101	1	1	maybe	motorway
			Frazee @ MN 87	1	2	maybe	motorway
			N of St Cloud @ CR 33	1	2	maybe	motorway
	14	trunk	Nicollet (W of Mankato)	1	3	maybe	motorway
	52	trunk	S of St Paul @ CR 42	1	2	maybe	motorway
	59	expressway	part of MN 60	0	10	now	remove expressway
	63	trunk	Rochester at MN 30/CR 16	1	1	maybe	motorway
US:MN	13	trunk	Eagan at MN 77	1	2	maybe	motorway
	23	trunk	N of Wilmar	2	3	maybe	motorway
	60	expressway	Iowa to Worthington	0	20	now	remove expressway

Notes

1. Refer to notes 1-7 in the inventory table above
2. Proposal values are: motorway -- this highway segment should be tagged motorway; remove expressway -- the expressway tagging should be removed

The following chart details some expressways being added to the proposal on 1/19/2022

New expressways proposed on 1/19/2022

Highway	Segment and analysis	Analysis	Proposal
US-12	In Long Lake	This is currently a 2 lane road separated by Jersey barriers. It is definitely not a motorway	expressway
US-14	E of Dodge Center	There is an at-grade intersection between two independent motorway islands. If both islands ended at the intersection it would appear (misleadingly) to be a single motorway island. If it is agreed that that single intersection represents a "slight degrade" it could be considered an expressway. An alternative is to make it neither motorway nor expressway.	expressway
US-52	N of Pine Bend	The motorway breaks at the intersection on the S bound late at Inver Grove Trail. Proposal is to make everything south of that point that is currently a motorway into an expressway.	expressway
	Near Pine Island	The motorway island should end at 210th Ave S where there is an abutting service road intersecting with the E bound lane. Beyond that point to the N there are two more RIRO intersections and a complete intersection. Proposal is to make the non-motorway portion (as described above) into an expressway.	expressway
	N of Cannon River	The end of the motorway island just N of Cannon Falls seems arbitrary. There doesn't seem any other obvious places to end it. Proposal: convert it to expressway, include the at grade railway (looks seldom used) and include the next small stretch of motorway into a larger expressway segment. This considers the at-grade (possibly seldom used) RxR as a slight degradation from motorway.	expressway
US-169	N of LeSeur near Minnesota River	There is a single RIRO service road that breaks the motorway. It is a slide degradation, so this should be an expressway.	expressway