Found that these sections of path added were to the bicycling half of the Iron Belle Trail and am moving them to the hiking section now.
osm.wiki/Michigan/Iron_Belle_Trail

Also, iD suggests "cycleway" where a paved "path" would be more accurate (and more discoverable and routable by people on foot and in wheelchairs).
osm.wiki/Michigan#Pedestrian_ways

Also, as an old-skool OpenStreetMapper I am a bit of a purist. OpenStreetMap data is supposed to represent current on-the-ground realities. Having not seen the area, I am not sure if you have done this, but I would not add things which have only been planned for construction. For things that are under construction, have a look at the newer and more flexible tagging method.
osm.wiki/Michigan#Ways_Under_Construction

The current standard for mapping a canoe/kayak/paddlecraft launch is a single point at the water's edge, preferably at the end of a trail leading to it, tagged with:
canoe=put_in;egress
Add any further descriptive tags.

For more information see:
* Michigan notes about tagging water features: osm.wiki/Michigan#Water
* Michigan water trail mapping project: osm.wiki/Michigan/Trails#Water_Trails
* Paddlecraft rendering: https://openstreetbrowser.org/#map=14/42.7385/-84.5501&basemap=osm-mapnik&categories=paddling_hazards,paddling_routes,paddling_amenities

At least now, they will not get sucked into a dam driving back there.

The highway segment is now concrete with a ford point at the creek. I figured that mapped the hazard and would render nicely. Someone with access to the site can improve it further.

osm.org/changeset/145057922

osm.wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dweir

Is this really a dam?
https://openstreetbrowser.org/#paddling_hazards/w358563701/details&map=17/42.70048/-84.67064&basemap=osm-mapnik&categories=paddling_amenities,paddling_hazards,paddling_routes
If the water goes over. it is most likely a weir. But then, there is also a ford mapped there.
I drove over to see it for myself and found that I could not get very close.

This is tagged like a water lock, used to lift and lower boats in a waterway. I suspect you meant barrier=gate.
osm.wiki/Key:barrier

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.
osm.org/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

osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch

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."
osm.wiki/Key: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.