OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
162349405 11 months ago

Hi, and welcome to OSM! FYI-this should be a path, not a pedestrian street.

162025126 11 months ago

Please spell out "St" next time. Thanks!

162294397 11 months ago

Please spell out "St" next time. Thanks!

160813102 11 months ago

Hi, I recommend not using MassGIS as a source since it's not always accurate. I've been working on updating Nantucket based on firsthand surveying and also using the Nantucket GIS which doesn't show these track roads named.

161433316 12 months ago

There's definitely no gate. Nice find/add!

161207102 12 months ago

This should not have been set as overall access=private. Please do not make edits unless you have actual knowledge of the area.

160561419 12 months ago

Northbound rather

160561419 12 months ago

Hi, you deleted a sidewalk that I personally surveyed/walked on Rte1S side and changed foot=no.

157559909 12 months ago

If it's registered as a street with a name, it should be listed as such. A footway is not a "street". That reference says "generally wider" but that doesn't mean that's common mapping practice here as it even states: "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."

161005061 12 months ago

I'll change it to access=destination as this seems the most appropriate for the situation.

157559909 12 months ago

I do not agree. If you click edit on Boardman Pl as it is currently set as a pedestrian street, you will see the access attributes automatically sets automotive=no.

Additionally, you will find Boardman Pl listed in the city's GIS:
https://www.axisgis.com/cambridgema

161005061 12 months ago

I did not see the sign on my survey just over two months back and a quick glance on StreetView shows the sign says the street name with private way under the name. It doesn't mean that access is restricted.

From the Wiki: "Note that it notes access, not ownership. Many privately owned roads are freely accessible for the public without prior permission- in such case access=private would be wrong and it may be access=permissive if the owner can revoke this permission at their own discretion. Privately owned roads can even be -depending on the legislation- public roads in the sense that the owner has a legal duty to allow the public access and is not free to revoke this permission (access=yes)."

160815629 12 months ago

Hello, I've edited Garden Lane back. There's no reason for the road change from residential to service or access=private. Thanks!

160253441 about 1 year ago

Good catch, but next time can you please spell out the complete name (Avenue)?

159684316 about 1 year ago

I would think the spot to the right still qualifies…maybe better suited as a pedestrian street now?

159684316 about 1 year ago

Hi, did you delete Palmer Ave here?

158868440 about 1 year ago

Although the city map does show this as an actual road. I think your edits were accurate aside from a minor misspelling which I cleaned up. Happy mapping!

158868440 about 1 year ago

This driveway was tagged/unnamed correctly. It only services 9 Gray Garden East.

158985201 about 1 year ago

My edit had nothing to do with the imagery. I just used whatever OSM loads. My edit was based on my survey I completed. I don’t recall the road extending here.

157235536 about 1 year ago

Is this a real road? I went and surveyed it today and there was no street sign. Also, it's not listed on both the GIS or the city's listing of streets.