Referencing ‘Town Line’: There is no evidence this is an officially named road. The sign marks the town boundary, not a street name. Please avoid adding or inventing names that are not supported by survey or authoritative data.

There is no evidence this is an officially named road. The sign marks the town boundary, not a street name. Please avoid adding or inventing names that are not supported by survey or authoritative data.

Thanks for sharing the photo and the on-the-ground confirmation. I’ve reverted the changeset. The signage appears to be a recent addition, as I didn’t observe it during my survey (also typically while running) or in available street-level imagery. Appreciate the follow-up—happy mapping!

Hi there! Sunny Ct isn't an actual street name. Verified no buildings carry that address via https://app01.cityofboston.gov/parcelviewer/ and no street sign is present.

Yes — it leads to Concord Turnpike and is labeled that way on the city map.

MassGIS is helpful, but for local road naming the City of Cambridge GIS takes precedence. Since it shows a different name, removing or changing the name should be discussed first.

I’m not saying it’s a motorway. My comment is solely about the road name — the name appears on the city’s official map, which is why I raised the concern about removing it without discussion.

Removing this name without discussion isn’t productive. The road name is present on the city’s official map, and any change should be coordinated with supporting sources.

Thanks for following up and for sharing the survey date and locations — that’s helpful. During my on-the-ground survey, I did not observe signage prohibiting pedestrian access in the portions of the area marked as Pendergast Avenue, and both parking and pedestrian use were clearly occurring at that time. I also recently reviewed available street-level imagery and did not see pedestrian-restriction signage present in those areas. That said, since your survey was conducted more recently than mine, I’m comfortable leaving it tagged as foot=no if you feel that is the most appropriate representation of current conditions.

This is an active railyard, but there are no posted signs prohibiting pedestrian access. Tagging this as foot=no is therefore not accurate. The area is routinely used by pedestrians accessing adjacent parking, which I have personally confirmed through an on-the-ground survey.

I classified those as tracks based on my on-the-ground survey of Salem Common. From what I recall, they’re noticeably wider, which made highway=track the most appropriate classification.

This was incorrect. The road does exist and is listed in the town’s official GIS street map. Its presence was also confirmed through an on-the-ground physical survey. The Lyft-owned aerial imagery appears to be outdated or incomplete in this area.

Thanks for the link — that’s helpful. Given that Ericson Place doesn’t appear on the official Providence street maps, and there were no signs present, I agree the name likely isn’t officially recognized. That said, I’ve removed the name until there’s clear municipal evidence or on-the-ground signage to support it.

I only extended the name to the rest of the road because the portion already named in OSM didn’t cover the full road. Since the name Ericson Place was already present in OSM and also appeared in ARCGIS, it seemed reasonable to extend the existing named road rather than treat it as a separate, unnamed feature.

Fennessey Court doesn’t exist at this location.

Map reference: https://www.chr-apartments.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/Interim_maps_7-Approved3-9-21.pdf

Coolman Commons Condominiums is not the name of a road in Boston. Please avoid adding invented street names unless they’re supported by signage or official sources. For clarity, the buildings in that complex are numbered 239, 241, 245, and 251, which aligns with the existing numbering on Norfolk Street.

Thanks for the follow-up. To answer your question about my objection: my point is simply that the Wiki’s current guidance treats two different posted names as separate directional names, not as “multiple values of name.=*” The name:left / name:right tags exist specifically to avoid merging distinct names into one field.

The semicolon or slash patterns are older approaches, and the modern examples leave name=* empty in this situation.

So to stay consistent with that, I removed the combined name=* and kept the directional names.

Appreciate the discussion!

Thanks for the explanation. Based on the OSM Wiki, name:left and name:right are the correct tags when a road genuinely has different names on each side. In those cases, the name tag should not contain multiple values or use “;”.

The Wiki example you referenced (Cincinnati) actually shows that when a road has different names on each side, the proper tagging is:
• name:left=*
• name:right=*
• and the name tag is omitted, not a semicolon list.

The semicolon format is for multiple values of the same key, not for representing two distinct official names. So once name:left and name:right are added, the name tag should be removed rather than combining them with “;”.

Please update the tagging to follow that structure.

According to the OSM Wiki (“Names” tagging guidelines), the name tag must contain one single name and must not use separators like “;”. If multiple names exist, they should be handled with appropriate tags (e.g., alt_name, loc_name). Please correct the name value accordingly.

Hi! Thanks for contributing. This update isn’t correct. OSM road types follow functional classification, not navigation data. The previous classifications were accurate and shouldn’t be changed for routing.