Hello, and thanks for contributing!

Many roads in Massachusetts are designated as private ways, but that refers to ownership rather than access rights. In OSM, access=private indicates a legal restriction on public access and should only be added when supported by verifiable evidence, such as gates, access control, “No Trespassing” signs, or other documented restrictions. In instances where the evidence only establishes private ownership, ownership=private is more appropriate than access=private.

Thanks for taking another look. I understand your concern, especially from the perspective of running the street. I’ve previously edited this so that the named service road ends where the driveway begins, with the remainder still mapped as a private driveway. So I think that should address the concern about treating the homeowner’s driveway as a public street.

A better, and preferred, approach would be to use the “road under construction” feature type and update the check date to reflect the most recent survey. This accurately captures the road’s current status while preserving the mapped road rather than removing or otherwise altering it.

Boylston Street is the access point for this road. Based on that, the Tremont Street gate alone wouldn’t support tagging the entire road as access=no.

Hello! While there is no documented name, there is a street sign displaying this name, so this should not be considered unnamed.

Hello! Can you elaborate on why you changed the access tag for Head Place to access=no? Your changeset comment, “edits from running survey 23-07-2026,” doesn’t explain the rationale or provide any supporting evidence for this restriction. Please clarify what you observed during the survey that supports the access=no tag.

This is incorrect per MassGIS.

I see you’ve changed this from my edits for the second time. There is a street sign present displaying the name, Oscar C. Tugo Circle, and my edit was based on an on-the-ground survey. Also, your changeset comment, “corrections to alignments,” doesn’t appear to accurately describe the changes, as they also include renaming roads.

Thanks for reverting those.

I gave you 30 days to respond to the questions left on the changesets before reverting, but didn’t receive a response. I also noticed comments like “lmao I don’t care” on other changesets. Clear changeset comments and responding to requests for information in a timely manner are important parts of collaborative mapping. When edits go unexplained and questions aren’t answered, especially alongside comments like that, other mappers may reasonably interpret the behavior as not following good editing practices or, in the worst case, as vandalism. Better communication helps avoid unnecessary reverts and makes it much easier for others to understand and review your edits.

This edit is incorrect. foot=* and bicycle=* tags describe legal access restrictions, not whether sidewalks or bike lanes are mapped separately. Unless there’s a legal prohibition those tags shouldn’t be added to the roadway.

Thanks for following up—I appreciate it.

Just one note: foot=use_sidepath should only be used where pedestrians are legally required to use the adjacent sidewalk or path (for example, where walking on the roadway is prohibited by law or posted signage). The presence of a sidewalk alone isn’t enough to justify that tag.

If pedestrians are simply allowed to use either the sidewalk or the roadway, it’s generally best to leave the road without a foot=* tag. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss it.

Thanks for the clarification. I surveyed the intersection today and updated it to match the current on-the-ground layout, although it looks like you’ve already changed it back. From a roadway connectivity standpoint, the layout you mapped doesn’t make sense, as the named roads weren’t connected in a way that reflects how the intersection actually functions. My edit was based on both the field survey and the state GIS.

I cleaned this up a bit by using links to achieve the intended intersection layout. If you compare it with the state GIS, Newton St and West Roxbury Parkway form an “X” configuration. The previous mapping didn’t reflect that layout.

You’re welcome! I’ve made the same mistake before myself. There are a lot of little OSM conventions that aren’t always obvious. Thanks for being receptive, and have a great weekend too!

I’ve noticed you’ve been changing a number of roads to access=private. As a reminder, many roads in Massachusetts are designated as private ways, but that refers to ownership rather than access rights. In OSM, access=private indicates a legal restriction on public access and should only be added when supported by verifiable evidence, such as gates, access control, “No Trespassing” signs, or other documented restrictions. If your edits are based on such evidence, could you please share it?

Can you please explain your rationale for changing the access on Nina Court to private? If you have a source or on-the-ground observations supporting the change, I’d appreciate understanding the reasoning.

Can you please explain your rationale for changing the access on Newcourt Lane to private? If you have a source or on-the-ground observations supporting the change, I’d appreciate understanding the reasoning.

Thanks for the update. As a reminder, road names in OSM should use the full official name, so “Extension” rather than “Ext.” Happy mapping!

I noticed the pedestrian portion of River Rd that I recently mapped was deleted. Based on both the town and state GIS, it is identified as part of River Rd, and my on-the-ground survey supports that as well. There is also a River Rd street sign at the Washington St intersection indicating the roadway continues through the pedestrian section.

The official addressing data used by the City of Boston identifies this roadway as Blackfan Circle. You can verify this in the City of Boston Parcel Viewer: https://app01.cityofboston.gov/parcelviewer/. The properties along this roadway are addressed as Blackfan Circle, which is why I believe Blackfan Circle is the correct name to use.