Please se https://library.municode.com/ma/somerville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=APXCCIST_ART1LOLEWIPUPRST, this is a private street

How are you using the Cambridge GIS to determine whether ways are private? That map shows parcel and asset details, but does not go into details on individual streets.

Farrell Way for example is on a private parcel.

Even if you were to rely on "does this street cross into a private parcel", that doesn't accurately reflect the conditions on the ground, as that map does not show what streets are marked as private

Oh, apologies, misread the changeset, looks like that is what is mapped here

I believe the segment from Mass Ave to Oxford St is in fact a 1 way? it's been about a week since I rode this, so I can't say authoritatively

Somerville Ave doesn't have a cycle track at any point, it's all on-street lane, at some points buffered.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152220019

To my knowledge, these are signed as private
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152221321

Isn't Pilgrim Street between Sidney and Landsdowne signed for no through traffic, as a private street?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152221401

What is this based on? this is an unsigned driveway, isn't it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152222558

I walked passed it today. There's a prominent `PRIVATE PROPERTY` sign. This segment also does not serve as a residential rode, it's purely access to parking for the private club. It's behind a driveway curb slope, rather than integrated into the road network.

I struggle to conceptualise this as "permissive", given the clear access signage. I could see an argument that most of the signage is related to parking being by authorisation only, but I think the larger "PRIVATE PROPERTY" sign is a clear signal. I also think that the role that it serves is that of a driveway, or perhaps a parking aisle, given that it's purely for parking access and behind a driveway curb slope.

I don't currrently have a place to post photos, but I will add them here if I do find hosting.

I think in this case, the signage would make this private based on the wiki description access=*

Given that this is signed specifically as private property, would it still be considered permissive?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152180292

Please see the Somerville data portal, in which this segment is listed as private. This in addition to the signage that was there last friday is why I have marked this as private https://data.somervillema.gov/GIS-Data/Streets/7jtq-qmnf/about_data

I updated this to driveway after riding into it. It's a parking lot that is signed as a tow away zone, not signed as a street, and is connected to the road network though a driveway apron. I do see it in the road atlas, so I'm going to at least mark it as private
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152142385

Hello, please keep your changesets local! It makes them easier to view in history. Since this changeset bounding box covers the entirety of the continental US, anyone looking at changesets within any city across that whole area will see this in history

See osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Also, would you be able to link to any info about the Neoponset River Greenway between Tenean and Morrissey? I didn't think that was supposed to be done till 2025, and haven't been able to find any updates about it

I rode along this road today, and I'm confused how the sidewalk could be considered a cycleway under the tagging standards for both
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152106074

I have marked the Charles River railway bridge path sections that do not exist per my survey last night back to being construction in changeset/152108157

I'd like to revisit the paths in north point park and the harborwalk, as they have felt like pedestrian infra to me on bike rides, but I have yet to investigate their legal categorisation
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152055193

The information you added as the description tag can be better covered by the closed tag you already added, and by the name of the school. There's not really a need for the redundancy, and redundency is specifically contraindicated for the description key: description=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151991583

Most of the paths in North Point Park are not cycleways. There is the dedicated cycleway from Museum St to the North Bank Bridge, but the rest are park paths with seating, not a dedicated cycle pathway.

I'm also confused about the path alongside the Charles River railway bridge. This changeset removed the construction tag, but it very much does not exist yet. What's your source for this?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152055193

The bike lanes in this area are not physically separated from the road surface, so I believe the convention is to map them as tags on the road. Given `highway=cycleway` indicates a separate way for the use of cyclists, and these ways don't record that that a lot of this is either unprotected or parking protected lane, this feels like it's not descriptive of what's on the ground?