You have the right idea about the purposes of the classifications, it generally is meant to be close to how you've written. The info I gave on lanes is just a general guideline for how this has been applied.

As for the downtown streets, we tend to map what the ideal route is. Just because people can drive multiple routes, doesn't mean all those routes should be upgraded; only the ideal one. That way, routing engines will prefer it.

Also, to give a bit of explanation for downtown road classifications:
* William Street was classified as secondary because someone going from the southern part of Ann Arbor to Northside would likely take Main -> William -> Division.
* Streets like Ann Street or Washington Street are not classified as even tertiary because they really don't carry much through traffic. Almost everyone driving on Ann Street is going from or to somewhere along Ann Street.

No worries, I appreciate your interest in editing this area! Yes, you have the correct understanding of a spur. For example, you've upgraded Ellsworth Road to secondary, but that classification terminates at South Maple which is primary.

Same with Clark Road terminating at Hogback Road.

In general I would only upgrade a suburban road (outside of a dense urban core area) to secondary if it has multiple travel lanes in each direction (though not every road meeting those classifications is secondary). Roads that are still arterials but don't carry that level of traffic are better classified as tertiary.

The general classification guidelines on the wiki aren't super clear so I can totally get how this would be a bit confusing. Please let me know if you have any more questions!

Hi, can I ask that you please slow down with these edits? Some of the changes you've been doing have overclassified various roads, and also introduced numerous classification "spurs" which should be avoided.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 129965307 where the changeset comment is: Revert overclassification; this is being discussed at a different changeset.

Most of the discussion has taken place on Slack, so few have felt the need to edit that guideline page itself. The particular thread where that discussion was started is here: https://app.slack.com/client/T029HV94T/CCAEPLP33/thread/CCAEPLP33-1662863532.635799

The NFC is really not the correct source of classification to use here. It can be a useful tool but your interpretation is very much overclassifying these roads compared to how classification in OpenStreetMap is intended to be used. Please stop making these edits until you get a consensus to do so.

Can you please revert this? I disagree with a lot of these classification changes; this over-classifies many local arterials and needs more discussion. The guidelines there aren't really up-to-date and we're working on drafting better classification guidelines at osm.wiki/Michigan/highway_classification; I would encourage you to help with that as the project there has stalled a bit.

Why did you change a lot of highway=cycleway to highway=path here? For example way 986773526.

Sure!

Thanks! That does seem quite tedious.

Just curious, where'd you get the data for Plymouth Township? Don't see that info on your userpage.

I appreciate your edits here! However, I'm not sure where you're getting this data; you don't cite any source, and I'm pretty sure some of the speed limits you put are incorrect. I recently surveyed 1st Avenue South and the speed limit there is 25 mph, not 20 mph; the speed limit map published by the city (https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/visionzero/speed-limits/speed-limit-map/) also shows this.

Ah, I see. I'm not sure if it's really beneficial to suppress the display of the shields, or if that's worth splitting these into discontinuous relations (feels like it's tagging for the renderer in a way? ideally the renderer would see from the tags on the ways that these designations are unsigned and would not render the shields of that is preferred), but this isn't something I feel *too* strongly about.

What is the benefit from splitting these relations in this case?

Forgot that I had an unsaved change here upgrading a tag on WISD. Didn't mean for that to be in this changeset, but that should be a fairly non-controversial change, so not reverting. Sorry though!

I just realized you're a new editor, so sorry if this came off as harsh. I appreciate your changes! Abandoned railways are a weird thing to be mapped in OSM in the first place, so it's understandable that how they should be treated could cause some confusion.

I'm a bit confused as to why you made this change? This abandoned railway wasn't ever called the Border-to-Border trail when it was in service, and while parts of its right-of-way are used for the Border-to-Border trail, that is already mapped. Therefore the name seems inappropriate to me.

Apologies for the late reply and the error. I wasn't particularly familiar with how relations worked so I can see how I would've made such a mistake; my "due diligence" was more referring to making sure I was reflecting on-the-ground reality correctly with my edits. Thank you for correcting this error!

I know this comment is years after you made this edit, so no worries if you don't remember, but are you sure there's a speed camera here? As far as I'm aware speed cameras are not allowed under Michigan law.

My comment was truncated, so posting in full here:

Realign misaligned features along/near Saline Waterworks Road. This is part of a larger cleanup that needs to take place in the Saline area, as most features in the city are misaligned following edits made in 2019/2020. Other than the editor who did this, no other edits before/after show such misalignment, nor does it make sense considering the surrounding area which is not misaligned. Additionally, many roads follow municipal boundaries, and said municipal boundaries were also misaligned by these edits from what they were before. Feel free to contact me if you have more questions about this, but I've done my due diligence to make sure I am improving things here.