I get your point about the wiki leaving it open to flexibility. I happen to lean in the opposite direction from you regarding what to do with that flexibility :) but I won't argue this to death. Maybe if I have free time I'll find the local forum/listserv or whatever.

"it behaves like a named public street rather than an unnamed path." To be clear I never disputed whether it's named (it is).

Even then, are you sure it's "treated by the city as a public street"? On https://www.axisgis.com/CambridgeMA/?CamaIdName=[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:CamaFullNumber]&CamaIdValue=120-86 shows it as within private property. It has a name, but so does Cottage Row. It's in light gray, but so are private driveways. There's a gate (usually open) and an ambiguously placed "no trespassing" sign.

(I don't really think how the city treats it is the right question, but if it's an established "local mapping practice", then I guess this isn't the place for me to debate it.)

Hi there, Could you explain why you think those are the criteria for highway=pedestrian? The wiki says "Generally, mappers use pedestrian tag only on wider streets which might accommodate motor vehicles." which Belvidere Place is not.

In this edit, it appears you accidentally renamed the big Lesley University relation of all 3+ campuses to name "Lesley University Porter Campus", and removed the tags from the way that was actually the Porter campus. I've fixed this in changeset #172370706.

It's a "real road" in the senses of: it physically exists, and it's not private property.

On some city maps, it's shown with the name, as for example: Parcel map (https://somervillema-live.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/storage/assessing/parcel-tax-map-020.pdf); Zoning map (https://www.somervillezoning.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/07/Zoning-Atlas-07192022.pdf); a random Paving Detour map (https://voice.somervillema.gov/4794/widgets/16025/documents/31511)

When you get into "the city's listing of streets", that's a rabbit hole into the different types of public ways under MA law.

Since the roadway is narrow, and mostly leads to back entrances, it could be considered an "alley" in OSM parlance, I think.

Is there really a separated cycle path on the BU bridge as you've just added? (I didn't review the rest of your changeset.) If not: There was recently a cleanup of Cambridge mapping to indicate bike lanes as tags on the main road, and only map separate ways for "highway=cycleway" if it is really separate (for example, flex posts are not considered enough). (I was not directly involved but I could probably help find the relevant users to discuss)

What are the new guidelines? What changed, where can I find it? For example the wiki has a bunch of local tagging guidance for New Hampshire but none for Mass that I found. Thanks in advance.

Oh. Well, there's a barrier=gate access=no, so connecting the ways shouldn't confuse anybody (should it?). But if it's not really a gate or it's wrong in any other way, feel free to correct it

OK, I added crossing=traffic_signals to the ways (changeset/157090817). I don't really understand what the difference is supposed to be between tags on the crossing nodes and tags on the crossing ways.

yes, I had just updated all the crossing ways and a lot of the rest of the intersection in its current construction state, changeset/157057043. This follow-up changeset was just to the crossing nodes. I checked all of them. Most are marked (the ones I didn't delete entirely) but one of them is now unmarked because it's was paved over and not repainted since. (and I made it explicitly unmarked.).

That said feel free to review the tags I used on the crossings. I did my best from the wiki by using crossing:markings and crossing:signals.

Fair enough, that in real life, bikes use this. (And some pedestrians, although most use the sidewalk which is safer.) It's a question of mapping law vs de facto reality. Biking on the busway is forbidden by the do-not-enter sign same as cars (I believe). Also, bikes go both directions, contrary to the one-way designation. I don't know if we want to map legal access rules or contrary common use.

@StreetSurveyor: The sidewalk for foot and bike is mapped as its own way, 840446974. Is that sufficient?

sorry I got confused in my comment, ignore the statement about the curb. and replace with "there is no lowered curb in that direction coming from the north side across the busway"

It's only a lowered curb onto the private parking alley, not in the direction toward crossing Grove St.

Also, the choice of which crossings the city marked with paint seems quite deliberate and I'm just trying to reflect "on the ground conditions". that's my opinion anyway.