Hello ferog_v,
Thanks for the information. With that in mind, it seems that proposed=secondary accomplishes the goal of noting that these will be changed in the future.

I do have another question for you regarding additional secondary highways in Cancun if you are able to take a look. What do you think about reclassifying www.openstreetmap.org/way/167990302 and www.openstreetmap.org/way/167552879 to tertiary? The guidelines on the OSM Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary) states that "tertiary highways commonly connect minor streets to more major roads and provide access to town centers.”, and they often times provide access into residential areas.

If these are proposed to be secondary highways like the previous ones we discussed, would adding “proposed=secondary” tag in addition to “highway=tertiary”, accomplish the same goal? Additionally, there are some floating secondaries that dead end without providing further connectivity. (For example, www.openstreetmap.org/way/167552785 and www.openstreetmap.org/way/167990287). Would these be appropriate to reclassify as “highway=residential” with “proposed=secondary” to follow the same system too? They are currently minor highway segments that provide access to homes along the highway. Looking at Esri World Imagery, the road infrastructure and surface quality appear to be in development and currently function better as residential.

There may be other examples that could be updated using this formatting and I would be happy to assist in making these changes if you agree with the approach. Happy Mapping and have a nice day.
