It would seem. Thanks.

Looking at the arial imagery, I would way highway=unclassified was the correct classification. Definitely not "residential". Have a look at the Michigan Wiki page and other pages on the topic. osm.wiki/Michigan
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138728377

Just a note to say GPS coordinates are the source of truth, when it comes to positioning.
Arial imagery can be offset or skewed and in need of repositioning before using them.
osm.wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database
The web editor iD has a method for offsetting the imagery under "Background settings".

Thank you. Fixed.
changeset/144032484

We should probably switch to using the newer and more flexible lifecycle prefixes for things like "under construction".
The older method was used for freeway construction and renders like it.
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

According to the wiki, this would be tagged as:
construction:leisure=pitch
sport=pickleball

leisure=pitch

Only things with a signed / official name should be named in OpenStreetMap.
osm.wiki/Good_practice

By the way, Michigan mappers meet each month. In October we are journeying to the centers of Michigan. Details can be seen on the Michigan wiki page.
osm.wiki/Michigan

I've created a project page for both sides of the Iron Belle Trail.
osm.wiki/Michigan/Iron_Belle_Trail

I started a project page for The Iron Belle. And made your bicycle route thee route.
osm.wiki/.../Michigan/Iron_Belle_Trail

If the path is still under construction or going forward, I'm wondering if it would be better to use the newer Lifecycle Prefixes. I've seen some rendering of "proposed" paths and those under construction looking like a freeway under construction.
osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

I started a project page for The Iron Belle.
osm.wiki/.../Michigan/Iron_Belle_Trail

I started a project page for The Iron Belle.
osm.wiki/.../Michigan/Iron_Belle_Trail

It looks like CyclOSM and Open Cycle Map render that proposed section well enough. Though, without looking closely at the map key, folks may think that trail really exists. Personally, I am in the "only map reality" camp. Maybe, the suggestion on the "proposed" key's wiki page to use "proposed: route=bicycle" would work better, as "this makes it clearer to database users that this route is not yet in existence."
proposed=*
That page also states, "
You are also encouraged to add the source for the plan with source=*. Please take care about copyright issues and don't copy from plans you're not entitled to do so.

Objects without clear evidence that there is some real active plan to construct it should be removed from data.
"

And, I doubt that is a true "cycleway". The only cycleway I know of in Michigan is a half mile long section on MSU's campus. Have a look at multi-use paths on the Michigan Wiki.
osm.wiki/Michigan#Pedestrian_ways
In fact, many of our paths are signed for wheeled users to yield to foot traffic. Which would more accurately be highway=footway + bicycle=yes + segregated=no or highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=yes + segregated=no
However, ignoring those signs, most have been mapped as highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated + segregated=no

"MTB Jump", is that really the name on all those? Do they have signs listing their names? And are they really tourist attractions?
osm.wiki/Good_practice

At the moment, there are not community supported tags for tagging mountain bike trail features, only the trail's way can be mapped with current tags.
osm.wiki/Mountain_biking

In summary, the trail is tourist attraction enough, only things with official name names should be named in OSM, not named just so they get rendered.

Sorry, I've been busy.

Many of the highway classifications are a routing hierarchy. They say little about type of road and more about the road's importance in the network. (I see the Michigan wiki page could use some clarification on this topic.)
motorway > trunk > primary > secondary > tertiary

I labeled only the section right off from the freeway as "primary", which anything off from a freeway could easily be.

You are welcome to change it.

We could also discuss it with others at the next monthly meeting.

I also have my eye on the road through Island Lake State Recreation area. The National Park Service says if it were in their parks, it would be a tertiary or secondary.
osm.wiki/US_National_Park_Service_Tagging:_Roads#Type_of_Road

Yes. As it is right off the freeway, it is definitely a "primary" road in OpenStreetMap parlance.

With the Great-Lake-to-Lake trail now routed through there, I wanted to ensure that section was accurately mapped.

In fact, Witmore Lake Road should probably also be "secondary".

This is a multi-use Path, not a cycleway. There are even signs posted instructing cyclists to yield to pedestrians (see Mapillary imagery).
osm.wiki/Michigan

There was already a route relation for the Lakelands trail.
relation/272564

The various names of this trail are on its various route relations. The ways do not need their own names.

The railway is long past abandoned (see Mapillary imagery). Nearly all of it has become something else, like a multi-use path.

Would Zingerman's be better represented as a point?

I did. Thanks.

Thank you, emersonveenstra, for your vigilance and hard work.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137812548

Just saw the RAMBA super relation. I understand how a relation of the club's trails would be helpful, but it doesn't feel like mapping "what's on the ground". I bet a company like McDonalds would love a relation that included all of their locations. "Relations are used to model logical (and usually local) or geographic relationships between objects. They are not designed to hold loosely associated but widely spread items."
osm.wiki/Relation

I wonder if would be possible to achieve a similar affect with a tag like "operator"? Not sure if there is a "maintainer", "custodian", or "steward" tag. Maybe it's time there is.
operator=*