I'm a bit confused by some of what you've changed from footway to pedestrian, e.g. Thoreau Path and Bowdoin. My understanding was `highway=pedestrian` was a pedestrian street, e.g. Washington St, while `highway=footway` was a path, with the distinction being width and amenities?

In MA, if there is a sidewalk, it is not legal for pedestrians to walk on the highway. See 720 Mass. Reg. 9.09(4)(c)

> (c) Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway whenever the sidewalk is open to pedestrian use.

The access key denotes the legal access right. Please revert this and the other changesets that similarly are not denoting the legal access
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153801173

Yeah, I'd agree, if it were a building that contained 61 and 63, then `61;63` denotes that, but I believe the actual address of the building is `61-63`. Not sure if it's intended as a range per se, but is actually the house number that's in city systems (Here's Boston Assessing, which I'm not sure we can use as a mapping source, because copyright, but I like to use to check some of my assumptions: https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=0303752000)

If that's the street number that's on the building when you surveyed, I'd map that outright, rather than trying to determine if it's meant to be a range covering specific numbers.
Per the wiki
> When such a range is officially used for the entire house, this is the preferred method. In this case 10-95 is simply a label like any other. In this and other cases, house numbers officially contain a dash and are not meant to be treated as special.
> Note that in some cases building or building complex has single address such as 3-5 that only looks like a housenumber range. As usual, do not convert such data blindly, without a verification.

This sort of housenumber is actually rather common in the map around Boston, so I don't think it's wrong to maintain the dash if that's what things are signed as: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1O1T

Welcome to OSM! This looks fairly good to me, only comment is that I believe the building's house number is `61-63`, rather than `61` and `63`?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153788747

Does it? It's not a limited access road highway=motorway?uselang=en-GB

This section of grand union has a cycletrack? All I knew of the restriping and resurfacing was buffered and parking protected lanes
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153525267

This is not a cycleway. It is separated by paint, and only paint. It is not grade separated, it is not hardscape separated. It is fully part of the road surfaces. It is neither as pleasant nor as safe as your routing is implying. This is incorrect by wiki standards, degrades map data for bicycle routing and bike network analysis, and does not represent the physical reality to users of the map.

I attest to my statement here by way of personal survey, and as a user of the map for bicycle routing and safe bike route planning
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153525815

Hmm, given I-90 is a motorway, I'd consider Storrow a grade below, so trunk feels applicable

There's also a path you removed at Drydock Ave @ Design Center Place, and another in Martin's Park, at Sleeper St @ Seaport Boulevard that I don't believe were restored in that changeset?

node/1399798442 does not appear to be on Allston St, why was that address moved from node/9130079442?

Thank you for reverting the harborwalk cycleway designations

You have added a cycleway in Post Office Square. This does not exist, which is why I had marked it as cycleway:right=lane on Congress Street

Please also note that the use of separate cycleways when mapping cycle tracks can substantially impair routing, and the mapping of non-vertically separated one directional cycle lanes as separate ways conflicts with the pattern as described by the wiki as per cycleway=*
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153390088

You've removed a couple features that don't seem to be removable based on aerial imagery, specifically the retaining wall for the turnpike ramps under WTC ave, and the ways entering the world trade center, what's the source of these?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153394409

Were paths by the Hampton Inn on Summer Street removed? You deleted them but they appear to be there in every set of imagery I have access to, including the MassGIS 2023 Orthos, as well as the bing and MassGIS 2021 Orthos that are referensed by your changeset.

Additonally, you removed paths in Martin's Park, and marked a sidewalk along sleeper street as layer -1? Are you using layer=-1 to hide warnings about crossing or overlapping ways?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153434003

What is the cycleway along fresh pond parkway? It appears as though you've marked the sidewalk as a cycleway?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153353561

Are laws of states and municipalities in the US not public domain automatically? While works of the states and municipalities might not be public domain, the text of law I thought was.

The municode link there is to the Somerville Code of Ordinances. That said, I can provide attestation that the street is signed as Grand Union Boulevard, in alignment with local law.

I do not believe Somerville provides an online browsable street GIS solution (Vision primarily contains parcel data, and the street basemap is demonstrably out of line with surface conditions and ordinance), however public domain ESRI data is here: https://data.somervillema.gov/GIS-Data/Streets/7jtq-qmnf/about_data

Oh, trust the wiki over the dropdown generally. iD gets updated, but the wiki is generally a more canonical source access=*#access-discouraged

Likewise with other segments of this street, see city ordinances, where Sturtevant is a former name of what is now Grand Union

Per city law, Sturtevant St is now Grand Union https://library.municode.com/ma/somerville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=APXCCIST_ART1LOLEWIPUPRST
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153090402

looks like the `crossing` node from the way you deleted is still there?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153168640

To my knolwedge, no entrance to Mem Drive is signed as a limited access highway. Per state law, that's bike accessible, see MGL chapter 85 section 11B, first paragraph: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c85-ss-11b

That said, it definitely shouldn't be encouraged or suggested by routing apps in most cases. bicycle=discouraged might be the more precise value to use, since access denotes the legal right of way

This changeset also deletes the tacticle paving information by replacing crossings with less completely tagged ways. The deleted crossings were ways 818789109 and 844315832