As part of this changeset a way #1312109595 was added in the Assabet Wildlife Refuge paralleling "Patrol Road" with a link out to Sudbury Rd by Woodland Way. This is in a area closed to public access (essentially all of the refuge west of White Pond Trail) . Is there some reason you marked this as open to all? Does this trail even exist or is it just a misplaced version of Patrol Road?

Thank you. I added 'by prior arrangement only' to the name field for clarity.

I'm curious why you marked the path connecting the Snow Hill Trail to Center street across the Glidden CR land as private? way/1375070322

This came up in an email conversation I had with a member of the Dover Land Conservation Trust about access to a different trail in the area (I'm trying to clean up the bicycle access status). Her comments about this area were:
...The Donnelly trail is actually public access for walking & horseback. I have found ROWs marked on maps as early as 1920 and am working on documenting the ROW. The subdivision that refers & expands it was before mountain biking became a thing so biking is not explicitly permitted and, therefore, likely isn’t (I will be speaking to Town Counsel about this). In any case, the excessively steep hill probably makes it a bad idea from a safety & an erosion standpoint.

The truly private trail(s) in the Miller Hill area are the ones in the Channing CR (Lesser & McKoy current owners) which is on the Farm St side of the RR tracks from almost Hunt Drive to Russo property (formerly R Healer). The CR is an early one & has NO public access. The access road for the RR tracks belongs to MBTA so not technically open but public ownership ;-) - you just can’t get off that toward Farm St until you reach DLCT land & then Springdale Meadows (Con Com = 46R Springdale Ave). Technically, Wylde Woods is not supposed to be used by bikes but we lost that battle long ago. Like Hale, we need to get some trail maintenance out of the biking community to compensate for the erosion (NHC already does a lot to compensate for the equestrian use).

I didn't draw the paths, I just altered the definition from footpath->path since they're not restricted to foot traffic (eg. bicycles are allowed). In any case, I believe the path is accurate if you check the satellite photos you'll see this is a bridge structures with paths down the sides (like sidewalks) and a space between them for vehicles.

Ah, ok. I guess the takeaway is the smaller the change the better. I'll go back and edit these so they are access=yes, bicycle=no. Mostly I care about bicycle access as other mapping sites are based on these maps. I'll join the slack channel @ some point, I didn't even know it existed. Thanks.

Interesting. In the xml it comes up as access=no, foot=yes. If I look in the editor it says under access:
All = No
Foot = Yes
I may have misunderstood but I thought all should be set to no if its not "all".

I think what I did was consistent with the description of access=no in the wiki, but maybe I've misread it.
access=*

My openstreemap.org version shows an orange (red?) dashed line. Are you looking at RWGPS or some other site?