Possibly. There were definitely some issues with having two admin levels on Bourne.

Forgive me, but what is the significance of using a place node? This was the first instance I’ve seen anyone use them. For mapping purposes, it’s important to show the admin boundaries and I think the place nodes were causing some mapping issues.

I assumed they would truncate where the road actually ends. What's the rationale for having it extend into the road as residential vs. link? Happy to correct but was trying to make it more accurate (or so I thought).

Do you think 'permissive' might be more appropriate? I don't recall seeing any signs in here and there were no gates. Your argument for making Newport streets private were the gates and there were none here. Trying to make productive edits and not have edit wars. :-)

This was an interesting "street". Tried to go all the way through from the upper Warwick portion but it turned into a driveway. Accessed it off of Division Street, no signs indicating Saddlebrook Drive (or private). East Greenwich GIS, https://next.axisgis.com/East_GreenwichRI/ didn't show it as part of the roads but the Warwick one, https://www.axisgis.com/warwickri/ previously did. In looking again today, the road name is gone. I'm going to remove the name all together and turn it into a driveway because that seems most appropriate.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bc4b01911f7846611b864f1/t/64c18d4052630424650983b0/1690406209269/Island-Cemetery-Map_v6-7-23.pdf

Thanks for letting me know. I was unaware of the discussion to make them service.

It's been a while since I've run this road. I'll adjust to a service road. Good suggestion!

Do you have a source that shows that all of this beyond the road up to Melrose should be called Collins Ave? https://next.axisgis.com/SaugusMA/ does not indicate that naming.

You can access it off of the Warren official page. Here is the link to the official GIS:
https://www.axisgis.com/warrenri/

That is the same GIS site. This portion doesn’t show private like others do (Ocean Lawn) for example.

Okay. I surveyed it in May and at the time, the only thing restricted was the part originally marked on Gammell which completely threw off my route!

Cliff and Barclay had no restrictions so permissive seems the most appropriate.

This portion of Gammell is open prior to the gate based on my survey. The majority that is marked private was the accurate placement of the private tag. A while back, you gave kudos to my adjustment of leaving this small section unrestricted when you had marked all of Gammell private.

This portion of the road is open and the gate is another aesthetic gate. We both have it marked further down where the access is restricted.

Thanks for the assist on this one!

I have physically run these roads this year.

This change is not appropriate. There is no gate here. This section is open and should not be private.

There was a street sign present when I ran it. If you want, edit it to where the gate begins but it is a road with a street sign.

Correct! I edited the east of the gate to open since there's no restrictions on that portion. The gate definitely threw me off on one of my planned running routes. :-/