I'm not sure if I agree that this fits the definition of highway=secondary. While it's certainly the faster route to take in some circumstances, it's clearly not intended as a link for through-traffic between Ludington and Manistee (as can be seen by the number of stop-signs and jogs along this route). I realize the difference between tertiary and secondary is even more ill-defined than the rest of the road classifications, but to me this route is no more than tertiary.

Hi MVEMJSUNP, could you please start using more descriptive language in your changeset descriptions? I frequently look at the history of objects when trying to figure out why something isn't mapped the way I expect it be, and seeing a bunch of changesets that only have "updates" as the description forces me to waste a great deal of time.

Hi welcome to osm. The name/description key pairs you've been using are not helpful information for osm and in fact only clutter the database.

Additionally a lot of the info you've been adding is about traffic patterns. This is not something that is mapped in osm. http://opentraffic.io/ may be what you're looking for.

I don't think you meant to tag as place of worship. Please fix.

Don't mean to come off as critical--this is just the kind of stuff that took me a while to figure out. If you wanted to work on an alignment for the data using your own gps traces, that would be awesome.

Be careful with retracing roads in the area generally. The Bing imagery is slightly offset from stuff's actual position on the ground ~10 feet. Working on creating a good offset guideline for Parkersburg. Already have one for Marietta.