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.
osm.wiki/Key:shoulder

This ( osm.org/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.
osm.org/way/1312080632

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

osm.wiki/Key: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.

The park, trail, or both?

tourism=information + information=route_marker

Is there really a sign with that name there?

osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dattraction

Tourist attractions? 🤔

osm.org/node/11766261580
osm.org/node/11943008980
osm.org/node/11758712561

Nice! Not only does that solve the access tag overload problem, but also avoids the canoe/kayak/sup/paddlecraft/etc nomenclature debate.

I waited until it was clear on the Wiki, despite OsmAnd's excellent support for the whitewater community's narrowly focused tags, that canoe was thee generic term for paddlecraft and canoe=put_in;egress was how transitions between water and land were to be tagged. Then, in a frenzy of stolen time, created the OpenStreetBrowser paddling categories [1], converted Michigan whitewater tags to canoe, and added a note to the Michigan wiki's cheat sheet to help encourage consistency.

Since the creation of the categories, I have seen many new route=canoe appearing in the U.S.. Not sure about canoe=put_in/egress.

So… Is it time to add support for waterway=access_point to OpenStreetBrowser? Maybe make it function the same as canoe=put_in/egress. Leaving support for canoe=put_in/egress for a time.

Any thoughts on tagging portages? Right now, the "Paddling Amenity" category highlights ways tagged canoe=portage.

[1]
* https://github.com/plepe/openstreetbrowser-categories-main/blob/master/paddling_amenities.yaml
* https://github.com/plepe/openstreetbrowser-categories-main/blob/master/paddling_hazards.yaml
* https://github.com/plepe/openstreetbrowser-categories-main/blob/master/paddling_routes.yaml

Regarding osm.org/node/2125473109

Where did the use of waterway=access_point come from?

I do not find it on the waterway page, nor anywhere else after a few quick searches of the wiki.
osm.wiki/Key:waterway

That location is a canoe=put_in;egress
I see now that back when I updated its tags I had forgot to add "egress". Still, it shows up well enough on OpenStreetBrowser.
https://openstreetbrowser.org/#map=17/44.65966/-84.71000&basemap=osm-mapnik&categories=paddling_hazards,paddling_routes,paddling_amenities

See the Michigan Wiki page:
osm.wiki/Michigan#Water

Regarding osm.org/way/1297721460

That new segment is part of a larger trail network. SpeedyChix updated its tags that she found mismatched with the leading and trailing segments. I then saw that it had not been added to the West Lansing Trail relation, so I merged it with the of rest of the Fine Park loop.

I have found where you have changed path to cycleway a couple of times. This conversation began after I discovered this edit (while talking to someone cycling The Great Lake to Lake Trail). It is, however, 11 months old and things may have changed since then.
osm.org/way/813680569

The source of truth for all things OpenStreetMap (and the mechanism used for determining future truths) is the Wiki. From what I have gathered reading the wiki is "footway" and "cycleway" pre-date "path" by many years. They likely came from British legal terms. As OpenStreetMap matured the access and path tags were added. The big different between footway, cycleway, and path is their implied access values.

* footway is foot=dedicated
* cycleway is bicycle=dedicated
* path is motor_vehicle=no

From osm.wiki/Key:access :
"Access values pre-eminently describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth, such as signage or legal ruling, and not involve guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if the signage is generally ignored."

In Michigan, we primarily use the "Signposted foot and bicycle path." example found here:
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath

See the Michigan wiki for further explanation. If that page isn't clear, let me know and I will try to improve it.
osm.wiki/Michigan#Pedestrian_ways

Have you been on these trails? I live on the east side of the river and have verified every mapped inch of these trails. When I can, I upload new GPS traces to OpenStreetMap after I have walked or rode the trail in person. I plan to soon capture new Mapillary imagery of the West Lansing Trail. There are a few sections I had yet to get to, but I am sure myself or one of the other local mappers (one I expect to come unglued when they see these edits hitting the MMMBA trails) will get to them eventually. Adding unverified movements seen in Stava Heat Map is adding noise and making unsanctioned paths look official. I would suggest verifying the data before copying from it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153380077

Why the change from highway=path to highway=cycleway?

> otherwise both of the names will render?

Depends on the renderer, but in general, yes. A name will render for every object given a name. Trail names in bridges make it look like the bridge has a name of its own. Even more confusing, a search for a name will return every object given that name. It can be hard to pick out a trail's overall relation amongst the noise.

> Just leave it blank or label the path with a local trail name?

When I do not have the time to create a relation and document it on our Michigan trail project's wiki page [1], or the trail is short, I will add the name just to the trail's largest segment. Naming one segment is enough to make the trail render, be searchable, and show amongst routing instructions. And, I only name a thing after I have found its name on a sign or official document [2].

[1] osm.wiki/Michigan/Trails
[2] osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things

You mean besides the general cautions against importing/copying other people's work because it may be inaccurate / out of date, have an incompatible license, or clash with what is already mapped ...

This case it might be fine. It's just that I only map what I surveyed or verified. Lincoln Brick Park has been on my to-do list for a very long time. Before I could map it I had to walk its trails again to capture and upload GPS traces to OpenStreetMap. Maybe even capture Mapillary imagery.

When I map, I am always thinking of things like the families who will use my edits to walk a new trail or the person trying to route their wheelchair across town, or the self-driving car depending on the accuracy of my edits. In all these cases it is better that the data is accurate than every area is filled in with something.

Last I looked, Trailfork's data is not licensed in a compatible way for use in OpenStreetMap. The various other sources may have the same problem. For accuracy and licensing, physical surveys of an area should be the preferred method of data collection.