Minnesota/Minnesota highway classification/Original Motorway & Expressway Proposal/Discussions & Conclusions

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page summarizes the discussion about the motorways & expressways proposal. Conclusions are also summarized. The main wiki page has been updated (section 5 Agreed guidelines) to reflect the discussion conclusions.

The original proposal consisted of 6 parts. This page is organized similarly. For reference, an archived copy of the original proposal can be found at: Minnesota/Minnesota highway classification/Original Motorway & Expressway Proposal

4.1.1 Motorways (general guidelines)

Discussion summary

There were no critical comments made about the general guidelines for motorways.

Conclusions

The general guidelines have been accepted as proposed.

4.1.2 Expressways (general guidelines)

Discussion summary

There were no critical comments made about the general guidelines for expressways.

Conclusions

The general guidelines have been accepted as proposed.

4.1.5.1 Motorways (TC metro general guidelines)

Discussion summary

There were no critical comments made about the general guidelines for motorways in the Twin Cities metro.

Conclusions

The general guidelines have been accepted as proposed.

4.1.5.2 Expressways (TC metro general guidelines)

Discussion summary

There were no critical comments made about the general guidelines for expressways in the Twin Cities metro.

Conclusions

The general guidelines have been accepted as proposed.

4.2.1 Motorway detailed proposals

For both the motorway and the expressway proposals, comments were recieved in the #local-minnesota channel of Slack (both in the thread announcing the proposal and the general channel comments). Some comments were also provided in direct OSM messages to the author. Comments are identified by the commenter (BG, JM, JRP, YVM). The discussion summary below excludes positive comments (there were several positive comments on both the overall proposal or specifics.)

Discussion summary

US 169 North of 169/MN 93 interchange

  • JM: I see the drive north of the US 169/MN 93 interchange, and to me this location make a logical place for the motorway island to end. Is your proposal for expressway=yes applied to the whole corridor including what is now motorway, or just the segment between the driveway and the north intersection of MN 93?
  • BG: Looks like I did not think this all the way through. I see two broken motorways now. The motorway island that starts S of where 93 joins 169 from the E should really end at the circular driveway near the power lines that cross the river. N of where 93 leaves 169 to the W of 169, if 169 should be a motorway, the starting point should be at the boat launch(?) road near the bridge. That motorway would end where it does now. That would be one solution. Another would be to make it into an expressway that ends on the S end of the segment, not at the boat launch but at the N most 93 intersection (at-grade). Making it an expressway has the advantage, I think of a longer expressway connecting directly to the motorway. I guess that would be my proposal. I think this is a tricky one.

MN 13

  • JM does not agree with changing west section to not be motorway
  • BG looking closer identified mapping issues in the area more complicated than the motorway recommendation
  • JM referred to a number of public documents to determine how to fix the area: possibly affecting US 169 Bus and CR 101 and CR 69
  • JM proceeded to make improvements in the Shakopee area

MN 371

  • JM: at Pequot Lakes, tag motorway island and maybe rest as expressway
  • BG: believes much of the rest is not expressway

Conclusions

The above discussion summary contains all the critical comments. Anything without critical comments is assumed to have been agreeable to the reviewers. All other aspects of the detailed proposals are accepted with the following exceptions:

  • US 169: Keep this issue open for further discussion
  • MN 13: Keep this issue open for further discussion
  • MN 371: Keep this issue open for further discussion

4.2.2 Expressway detailed proposals

Refer to the introductory paragraph of the Motorway detailed proposals section above.

Discussion summary

JM had questions about the overall pupose of the expressway=yes tag. BG provided an explanation based on the U.S. guidance on its use.

US 12 past Wayzata

  • JM: The bottom line, to me, is that this highway meets all the de jure requirements of being classed as a motorway without meeting a sort of "de facto" retirement of having more than one lane in both directions.
  • JM: In my opinion, US 12 from 494 to Baker Park Road should be a motorway, but am open to other opinions since this has been described as an "edge case."
  • JRP: Since this doesn't appear to be a motorway island but rather a motorway that downgrades into a two-lane road, I'd say the part that is currently motorway remain motorway
  • BG: One approach is to leave as is because of no overly compelling reason to change it. We capture that decision in the wiki to memorialize it and fight against more changes if they happen.

US 14

  • JM: The US 14 situation is tricky. While thinking about it, I identified an intersection south of Havana that has since been upgraded to an interchange, making all of US 14 from Waseca to Dodge Center up to motorway standards. My thought is to make an exception for what is otherwise a motorway island in Kasson and a motorway spur in Rochester and make the whole corridor expressway=yes. I really don't like that though, so any other thoughts would be welcome
  • BG: invited more opinions about to handle

US 52

  • JM: US 52 proposal near Cannon Falls seems off to me. In my opinion, it make sense to leave the Cannon Falls island as motorway and just have it end at the RR you identified in the proposal.
  • YVM: US 52 between I-90 & I-94: I prefer to upgrade portions that had been correctly mapped as trunk to motorway whenever MnDOT construction projects (new interchanges, elimination of at-grade crossing and side street access, addition of frontage roads, etc. (the current mostly southbound 52 between Cannon Falls and Zumbrota project is a perfect example which will result in a lot more that I think should be changed in OSM to motorway when it’s completed)
  • YVM: US 52 at CR 9: I had originally mapped that portion of US 52 as motorway, but another mapper (Fluffy89502) downgraded it back to trunk with the reasoning “one grade separation does not mean that the route is a freeway”. I happen to agree and I so I “stand corrected”. The only goofy thing about it is that this interchange has an Exit Number (89) and so it has a node that is a “motorway_junction” with the added ref=89 tag; the off-ramps also have junction:ref=89. However, a new interchange is going to be built at US 52 and MN 57 at Hader (unincorporated place) in 2022, and they will be eliminating the at-grade situations around both of these interchanges, creating a stretch of several miles that I believe should then be mapped as motorway.

US 169

  • Refer to discussion in Motorway section above

MN 13

  • Refer to discussion in Motorway section above

Conclusions

The above discussion summary contains all the critical comments. Anything without critical comments is assumed to have been agreeable to the reviewers. All other aspects of the detailed proposals are accepted with the following exceptions:

  • US 12 past Wayzata: Since it is a possible close call, BG is pulling the recommendation to make it an expressway. Leave US 12 as currently mapped.
  • US 14: Keep this issue open for further discussion
  • US 52: Keep this issue open for further discussion
  • US 169: Keep this issue open for further discussion
  • MN 13: Keep this issue open for further discussion
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification/Original_Motorway_%26_Expressway_Proposal/Discussions_%26_Conclusions&oldid=2252408"