This isn't signed, to the best of my knowledge. Under MA law, bikes are allowed on all roads except where explicitly prohibited, and there is no point of Mem drive or Soldiers field road that I know of that explictly prohibits bikes
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155990682

Sorry, missed pasting the link: way/1310858777#map=18/42.341823/-71.102314&layers=N

Does this cycleway [1] exist? I believe it's an on street bike lane with a buffer

Hello, it looks like you used out of date imagery for the North Washington Street Bridge. You've reverted the map to the temporary alignment that has already been torn down.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155464277

This is in Medford. Are these actually Somerville addresses?

Arguably, it's not necessary to tag `foot=no` on motorways with sidewalks in the state. State law is such that on all motorways with sidewalk, pedestrians are not allowed on the motorway, and so it can be considered the default access. Generally, it's more important to tag the exceptions than the rule

On the other hand, I can understand how data consumers might have trouble with that particular law, so I'm not going to tell you to not keep adding these tags
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154915160

Looks like you may have accidentally dragged a point on way/1291328298
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154915537

Are these really oneway: alternating? I am not familiar with any such streets in the area, and these look to have fairly permanent one way infrastructure?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155045964

Did you mean to drag the edge of the water?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155120531

Oh, I guess I had gotten confused about the distinction, and had conceptualized pedestrian street as something commercial lined, or similar, but looking again at the wiki it just seems very ambiguous. Seems like a less clearly distinguished set of tiers than the highway=primary/trunk/tertiary

Note you also removed a lowered kerb, node/7886992385, which does exist. It's somewhat arguable as to whether this is an implicit unmarked crossing, because of the flush kerb, but even if you don't restore the crossing, the kerb is still something that should be mapped
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154312743

Thanks!

So they're still binker traffic lights right? Apologies if I misread your changeset, it looked like you had removed the points

Did you mean to remove the traffic lights at Main St and Mystic Valley Parkway? I'm not entirely certain if the lights there had been fully decommissioned, my memory of my ride through this weekend isn't definitive, but I thought these were controlled to some extent
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154287297

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