Coolman Commons Condominiums is not the name of a road in Boston. Please avoid adding invented street names unless they’re supported by signage or official sources. For clarity, the buildings in that complex are numbered 239, 241, 245, and 251, which aligns with the existing numbering on Norfolk Street.

Thanks for the follow-up. To answer your question about my objection: my point is simply that the Wiki’s current guidance treats two different posted names as separate directional names, not as “multiple values of name.”=* The name:left / name:right tags exist specifically to avoid merging distinct names into one field.

The semicolon or slash patterns are older approaches, and the modern examples leave name=* empty in this situation.

So to stay consistent with that, I removed the combined name=* and kept the directional names.

Appreciate the discussion!

Thanks for the explanation. Based on the OSM Wiki, name:left and name:right are the correct tags when a road genuinely has different names on each side. In those cases, the name tag should not contain multiple values or use “;”.

The Wiki example you referenced (Cincinnati) actually shows that when a road has different names on each side, the proper tagging is:
• name:left=*
• name:right=*
• and the name tag is omitted, not a semicolon list.

The semicolon format is for multiple values of the same key, not for representing two distinct official names. So once name:left and name:right are added, the name tag should be removed rather than combining them with “;”.

Please update the tagging to follow that structure.

According to the OSM Wiki (“Names” tagging guidelines), the name tag must contain one single name and must not use separators like “;”. If multiple names exist, they should be handled with appropriate tags (e.g., alt_name, loc_name). Please correct the name value accordingly.

Hi! Thanks for contributing. This update isn’t correct. OSM road types follow functional classification, not navigation data. The previous classifications were accurate and shouldn’t be changed for routing.

I believe you may have inadvertently messed up a border here.

Thanks for the clarification. Just to be clear, when I said “treated as a public street,” I wasn’t referring to ownership — only that it’s listed in the city’s GIS as a named street and used for addresses. I understand your interpretation and appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

I think one key piece was missed in your reply. The wiki itself says:

“The scope of this tag may overlap with highway=footway, which is generally used for narrower, often unnamed, pedestrian pathways and sidewalks. The distinction between the two may be region-specific.”

That line explicitly allows for regional/contextual flexibility. In this case the city’s GIS treats the way as a street and properties use it as an address, so it behaves like a named public street rather than an unnamed path.

I understand your point about the wiki guidance and the word “generally.” I read that as allowing some flexibility for cases like this — where it’s not wide enough for vehicles but is still treated by the city as a public street. I leaned toward pedestrian since it’s mapped and addressed like a public street, which aligns with how pedestrian streets are typically designated in the city and fits local mapping practice.

Soden Place should be listed as a pedestrian street — it’s shown in the city’s GIS map and has properties that use that address.

Hi there! Belvidere Place should be listed as a pedestrian street — it’s shown in the city’s GIS map, and some properties even use it as an alternate address.

Please don’t adjust road types based on navigation system behavior. Classifications should reflect real-world conditions, not routing outcomes.

Memorial Drive is a public road that is not legally prohibited to pedestrians. The presence of sidewalks and bike paths doesn’t negate pedestrian access to the road itself—it just provides safer alternatives. Unless there’s explicit signage or regulation forbidding foot traffic, the correct tagging should reflect that pedestrians can use the road.

Do you have site plans showing said plans? Based on what I surveyed, Milestone ends at Axel Way and doesn’t continue south past it.

Can you explain why you reverted this? I personally surveyed and confirmed the road layout before making the edits. A discussion would be more productive than a straight reversion.

Please stop changing roads to prohibit foot traffic unless there is a legal restriction in place.

Please stop changing roads to prohibit foot traffic unless there is a legal restriction in place. The presence of sidewalks already indicates pedestrian access, so edits should reflect official, verifiable rules—not assumptions.

Would you mind switching it back from access=private? That would keep the tagging consistent with how “Private Way” is treated in Massachusetts. Thanks!

Thanks for clarifying and pointing out the sign! In Massachusetts, a “Private Way” typically just means that the homeowners are responsible for its maintenance, not that the public is restricted from using it. From the OSM wiki: access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not simply that the road is privately owned.

Given that, access=private might not be the best fit here.

Hi! I noticed you changed Deerfield Road to access=private. Could you share why you marked it that way? From my last survey, access didn’t seem to be restricted there. Just trying to understand the reasoning so we can keep the map accurate. Thanks!