Thank you for pointing it out, fixed in #140187115

Thank you for pointing this out, this is fixed now in 140187115

I don't think cycleway:both=lane is well recognized, on [Bicycle tags map](http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~ligfietser/fiets/index.html?map=cycleways&zoom=14&lat=42.25613&lon=-83.71884&layers=B000000TFFFFFTTFFFFFFFFFFF) suggested by [michigan's OSM's wiki](osm.wiki/Michigan), cycleway:both=lane is not included as an option.

On wiki, "cycleway=lane" is explained as: "cycleway=lane is used to tag two-way streets where there are cycle lanes on both sides of the road, or one-way streets where there is a lane operating in the direction of main traffic flow." I presume this is why iD is generating cycleway=lane instead of cyclway:both=lane

Thanks for pointing this out, fixed in 134835098

because tools such as iD editor and Transit app does not recognize cycleway:both and cycleway:both:lane, thus I thought it is bit malformed. And when I edited it in iD, when both lane is marked as "standard cycle lane", it automatically generates the tag: "cycleway=lane" instead of "cycleway:both=lane". Do I need to include all three cycleway=lane, cycleway:both=lane, cycleway:both:lane=exclusive ?

Based on two published material by DDA (downtown development authority) as well as personal survey:
1. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15cWvMZe03kStX3i5YhrPgShTkqlv1WTN/edit#slide=id.p11
2. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1I3qGPb0lK2zTqhDNyYI6B4P__xbQLl0z/edit#slide=id.p12

Hi, EllieNyaa, sorry I have no idea this draft is still going on, I saw as there's no further updates regarding it since September that it is dead.

Can you link me to potential discussions within Michigan mappers regarding this project?

NFC is used by governments, local, regional and state to design their road network and its road geometry. It provides the clearest insight into how a road is intended to be used. It might not reflect the current road geometry & capacity & flow, but it is the most stable source we can reference without doing expansive surveys and having excessive and debates. Basing our classification on NFC is the best approach here IMO and it is what suggested on the current guideline osm.wiki/Michigan#Highway , however I understand our current translation guideline may not be optimal.

Please don't take this personally, I see you as the sole only contributor to the new updated classification guide, and its guideline vague and full of "idea"s, I understand this is a draft, I share your concern but I don't think classifying trunk lines and main roads case by case is a good idea.

If there is an ongoing discussion among mappers I'd love to have a peak, but if its an on going draft that's going to keep coming in and stalling away for the next few months or years, I am frankly not interested to be stuck in a duality and get nothing done.

The road classification in and around Ann Arbor/ the Southeast Michigan is so random that I thought I should come in and help, I cannot work with your draft right now considering its state, it's a worse choice than what we have right now.

Yes, over-classification could be a problem, but inconsistent classification is worse.

Thank you for improving the classification guideline and communicating it to me, but I will not revert my changes just because there is an early draft of the classification guideline.

However if there is an workable guideline draft, I would love to attempt to implement it in Ann Arbor and to discuss what I think.

I've also checked & fixed the assigned speed limited on the majority of edited roads. The speed map is obtained here: https://www.a2gov.org/services/GIS/Documents/SpeedLimits2021v2.pdf

Current edit is restricted only to the roads that's within ann arbor administrative area. Seems like road classification is largly inconsistent with wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Highway