Is the name correct? The referenced article calls the site "Chevron Refinery Facility", while listing an other name of "Chevron Cincinnati Facility" where it is spelled like the city.

Huh.

How best to map in light of that law would make for another great discussion topic. The results to be captured on the Wiki.

I am sure these topics have been discussed many times in the past on the email list and forum.
osm.wiki/Contact_channels

I would also check the Wiki, as it is supposed to represent current consensus.

Here is my opinion:

Ideally, the OpenStreetMap database would instantly change to represent current reality.

Accurately mapping physical attributes in a detailed way is relatively safe. That is, when there are enough people willing and able to keep those details accurate as they change. I know I cannot keep up, so I try to resist the urge to add things that will quickly become inaccurate. Sometimes vague can be better than confidently inaccurate.

As to mapping the intangible attributes of an object, the "Good practice" page states, "OSM is a geographic database, not a legislational database."
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_local_legislation_if_not_bound_to_specific_objects

As is done for default speed limits, we should focus on mapping the physical attributes the laws are based on. Then the Wiki can be used to share filters data consumers can use to determine how to behave based on the law. If the law changes, one quick edit fixes all objects having those attributes.
osm.wiki/Default_speed_limits

Some of the problem may be a British to Michigan terminology difference and iD's suggestions. A Michigander searching for "sidewalk" is suggested highway=footway + footway=sidewalk, intended for a foot-only path immediately adjacent to a roadway. A similar thing happens when searching for "bike" or "bicycle" it suggests highway=cycleway, which means bicycles only.

> Hi, is it bad to add redundant tags?

Once begun, it should be done state-wide AND be maintained.

> Although they may be redundant to people editing in Michigan, is it not better to be explicit so the router will know it is legal to bike on sidewalks?

Maybe someone should start a discussion about our use of footway on the Michigan Wiki talk page.
osm.wiki/Talk:Michigan

We could create Michigan's table for default access restrictions to change the meaning of the tags. That is, if Michigan really is unique in this among the states. However, changing the default access-es of way tag would come with its own consequences.

> I can start adding smoothness and ensuring width is present as well to improve routing (as sidewalks usually have inferior smoothness to roads, but not always, as streets can sometimes have more debris present than sidewalks [side note: is there a way to tag the smoothness of a bike lane separate from the road, for example when the road is smooth but the bike lane accumulates debris from the road?]).

Again, this is great. But it would need to be updated by someone once cleaned or repaired. As an example, I struggle to keep up with Old Lansing Road each time they chip and seal over the lane markings that designate its narrow shoulders as a legal bicycle lanes.
way/39259913/history

> I was trying to primarily focus on adding bicycle=yes on sidewalks adjacent to one-way and especially busy/fast roads like Saginaw and Oakland to fix routing where an unnecessary (and oftentimes dangerous, as it usually means riding with traffic on a de facto 45 mph road) detour would be suggested simply to avoid using the sidewalk.

That could be helpful. I will admit I do not ride near that inner-city freeway often. When I have, I have not noticed OsmAnd or Organic Maps suggesting I ride on Saginaw or Oakland.

> I can understand the concerns about the dangers of high speed biking on sidewalks, but I would think that should be something that the router should account for when seeing the width and the combination foot/bicycle=yes. Although I think sidewalks should ideally have separate bike areas added whenever possible to make traffic safer for all road users, but obviously that's not an OSM issue.

I believe the problem is it is human nature to focus on the major roadway with heavy vehicles moving very fast, then miss the human/bicycle/scooter/one-wheeling/etc going nearly as fast just a quick turn, late stop, or backing out the driveway, away.

> As for bicycle=yes on roads, should it just be left up to the router whether that road can be biked?

Yes. Map the physical attributes (we want and can maintain), keep our state-wide law pages up to date. Then let the routers figure it out from there.

It is not just routers. CyclOsm renders roads differently based on speed, for example. I noticed this recently after mapping the signed speed limit within Evergreen Cemetery.
https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=16/42.7083/-84.5120/cyclosm

> Should I only add a bicycle tag when it is bicycle=no, such as on segregated freeways?

I would only add a tag like when there is a sign seen at the location which changes the default. For instance, the sidewalks/paths in downtown areas of many Michigan villages and cities would be bicycle=dismount. I have yet to see one that would be bicycle=no.

> I've also been tagging roads explicitly with their foot tag, whether yes or no, because that depends on factors not related to tags on the roadway itself, but instead to whether there is an adjacent sidewalk or not. Is that okay? Should I just leave the tag blank on roads with sidewalks and only explicitly add foot=yes on roads without sidewalks?

As they do not always relate to physical attributes, the access tags are unique in OpenStreetMap. They represent the legal access, not physical, not a suggestion or judgement of the safety or practicality.
access=*

It is my understanding, by default in Michigan, as long as they are moving, people are allowed to walk on any roadway not designated as a freeway.

> I've also wondered about places where access is legal but hardly practical, such as on roads where there is no gutter area separate from traffic lanes (see the North Larch St Bridge from Lake Lansing Road to East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue and vice versa

I tag "death canals" with shoulder=no.

shoulder=*
verge=*

> [I do now see that you marked this as cycleway:right=no. Is this sufficient to tell a router that this is not a good way to route?]).

That was likely added by me solving a StreetComplete quest. I have not looked into the details of any of the routing engines, but I am sure they would use attributes like, the roadway's classification in the network, the lack of a shoulder, lack of a bicycle lane, its max speed, number of lanes; to prefer alternate routes. OsmAnd and Organic Maps have done well by me.
osm.wiki/StreetComplete

My favorite example of how OpenStreetMap can benefit bicycling and other pedestrian uses is the work done by the fine folks in Ottawa, Canada.
https://maps.bikeottawa.ca/

Notably this is achieved with only a few elegant tag combinations, well documented on their GitHub, then shared with the community on the Wiki as they become mainstream.
https://github.com/BikeOttawa/OSM-Bike-Ottawa-Tagging-Guide

Regarding implied access see osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

Regarding implied access see osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

Copied from my earlier changeset comment. changeset/159287397

Welcome to OpenStreetMapping.
Not sure what Go Map!! is showing, but adding bicycle=yes to roadways is redundant, as it is implied.
As far as I know, every _legal_ bicycle lane in the area has already been accurately mapped. For instance East Kalamazoo Street already had the tag cycleway=lane, meaning it has a legal (wide enough and painted and/or signed as such) lane on both sides.
Have a look at the Michigan Wiki for more information.
osm.wiki/Michigan

Yes bicycling is legal on most Michigan "sidewalks". Ours might be better tagged as highway=path + surface=concrete + width=1. Most Michigan mappers only add bicycle=yes where it is needed to route someone where the road network will not. Like, a cut through between two neighborhoods. Another reason I do not do add bicycle=yet to sidewalks, besides limiting routing confusion when it would appear to the router as bicycling paths on either side of the road, plus the road itself, then some roads will also have bicycle lanes on that road; I hear that high speed cycling on sidewalks is statistically more dangerous.

Welcome to OpenStreetMapping.
Not sure what Go Map!! is showing, but adding bicycle=yes to roadways is redundant, as it is implied.
As far as I know, every _legal_ bicycle lane in the area has already been accurately mapped. For instance East Kalamazoo Street already had the tag cycleway=lane, meaning it has a legal (wide enough and painted and/or signed as such) lane on both sides.
Have a look at the Michigan Wiki for more information.
osm.wiki/Michigan

Are you going to fix this? It keeps coming up. inaccurately, in searches.

Thank you for the edit. Good to know there is access to the park there

I have removed 'Clifford Park Enterance" from this path.
way/1205503169

A name should only be added when it has a sign, or another official source.
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Also, highway=path implies motor_vehicle=no. In fact, it is about all it means.

Found this standing in a parking lot here now. Trying to map an EV charger. I'll delete the restaurant.

It shows the entire area the edit affected. Down below, it lists the objects. affected Could click through the ways to see which was mentioned.

Another option would be a tool that shows the edits graphically, like OsmCha.
https://osmcha.org/changesets/145312706?filters=%7B%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%2C%22ids%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22145312706%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22145312706%22%7D%5D%7D

By making smaller, more succinct edits, they would be easier to reference and discuss.

If I had to guess, I would suspect they mean this, after the entire length of the trail was also labeled as a ford.
way/1092786976/history

Another example further north where the road narrows.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=317522311432738&focus=photo&lat=42.793766416798036&lng=-84.43586189243695&z=16.1250923421062&x=0.531016159249028&y=0.5949681622636045&zoom=0

I just drove through there and captured Mapillary imagery. Park Lake Road does not have bicycle lanes. Those are merely "fog lines". Inaccurately mapping it could get someone injured, with little recourse... as it is not a bicycle lane.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2141113966272148&focus=photo&lat=42.786646884107995&lng=-84.43308667631197&z=1.5

In Michigan, a legal bicycle lane must be:
- 3 foot wide, when the speed limit is under 45.
- 4 foot wide, when the speed limit is 45 or more.
- marked as a bicycle lane by signs, lane markings or both.

You could measure and the shoulder widths. Without a measurement, the shoulder tag implies a vehicle could safely pull of the road.
shoulder=*

This ( way/484642093 ) was accurately mapped as a multi-use path. Only bicycles are allowed on a cycleway. Cycleways are very rare in our parts. In fact, most of our multi-use paths require cyclists yield to those on foot. See the section for mapping pedestrian infrastructure on the Michigan Wiki page.
osm.wiki/Michigan

No apology needed. Only trying to help.

Actually. I did not look at this edit very close. I only looked for latest to not have the parking areas connected to the ways, after seeing a few others.

This edit is two years old, but just in case, I wanted to point out highway=cycleway effectively means bicycle=designated. Ways that only allow bicycles are very rare, at least in Michigan. Probably all of North America.
When it doubt for pedestrian ways, start with highway=path.
See the note on osm.wiki/Michigan#Pedestrian_ways

Thanks for all your work.

When adding parking, be sure to connect the parking to the road network leading to it. Pretty sure iD normally alerts on parking being disconnected from the ways.

For instance, here the driveway should run along the south side edge of the parking area, and the parking type would technically be street_side.
way/1312080632

Then here, the parking lane should intersect with the surface parking area.
way/1312080630

parking=*

Unless there really are signs that can be mapped, I have not found a mapping scheme currently developed for mapping MTB obstacles/elements.

My wife and I were in the area and stopped by. I am uploading Mapillary imagery that which shows there is only a small sign at the entrance of "The Dump" trail.

The County's map shows the trail is within Stuart's Landing Park.
https://arcg.is/184HyW

Property map shows it is sevaral parcels belonging to the City of Marshall.
http://link.fetchgis.com/61b507bf

The "The Dump" park should be removed. The real park should be expanded to match its full boundaries. A MTB trail relation should be created. The trail's name should be on its relation, not its segments. The sign could be mapped as its trailhead. Once the Mapillary imagery has processed, the photos could be used for adding details.