Thanks for the time and care you’re putting into improving the map — your efforts are appreciated. I did want to mention that I came across several changes where foot access was set to “no” on roads that actually have sidewalks or nearby bike paths.

While I understand the intention might be to reflect pedestrian safety or routing preferences, in many of these cases, foot access is still legal and possible — especially when there’s adjacent infrastructure like sidewalks or multi-use paths. Another user also brought up the legal aspect, noting that unless there’s a specific prohibition, pedestrian access shouldn’t be marked as “no.”

Happy to help review any of these edits or talk through them — always appreciate good collaboration in the OSM community.

These changes are incorrect. If there are sidewalks, they should definitely be foot=yes.

Hi! This is incorrect. They were previously tagged correctly as parking aisles.

This is incorrect. Please refer to:
https://gis.data.mass.gov/maps/5088c1b6af16420e98f1165d051d60df

Under state specific guidelines, Massachusetts has a classification standard.

MassGIS F-Class 2 = highway=trunk
MassGIS F-Class 3 = highway=primary
MassGIS F-Class 5 = highway

osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

Hello! I recommend that these be updated as driveways/parking, not regular service roads.

Private community doesn't mean private access. From the Wiki: Clarification of the term “private”
"Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not whether the object is privately owned or not. Use ownership=private or operator:type=private to record this kind of status. For example, a privately owned road with public access may be tagged like any other road with public access – without access=* tag, or with the explicit access=permissive."

Hi! I made some minor changes to these roads (that are now paved). I've yet to see anything stating that they will have different names. Have you?

Well, good edit in that case. Not sure why the city decided to change that considering the map still shows it as New Minton.

Are you sure you’re not looking at Minton St roughly a block away? New Minton has the sign correct.

This is incorrect. A quick G image shows this as "New Minton St"

I corrected some of the street names per the Boston city map.

Hi, this was also incorrect due to sidewalks/bike paths. They only time they really should be tagged as '...=no' is if there are restrictions or signs indicating ' no....access' for a given type.

Hi,

Unfortunately, this wasn't accurate. There are sidewalks on each side of the street.

See:

https://next.axisgis.com/WarwickRI/

https://warwickonline.com/stories/buttonwoods-is-not-a-fiefdom-but-rather-a-borough,156753

https://warwickonline.com/stories/why-buttonwoods-avenue-is-a-public-road,281304?

Hello,

Thank you again for the detailed feedback. I want to respectfully reaffirm that I stand by my recent access tagging edits, which were made in good faith and also based on credible public sources.

The City of Warwick’s official GIS system, https://www.axisgis.com/WarwickRI/ clearly shows the roads in question—including those in the Old Buttonwoods area—as public. This supports the view that, despite the presence of “No Trespassing” or “Residents Only” signs, legal public access remains in place.

Additionally, local reporting further clarifies the history and legal status of these roads. A 2020 Warwick Beacon article titled “Buttonwoods is not a fiefdom but rather a borough” https://warwickonline.com/stories/buttonwoods-is-not-a-fiefdom-but-rather-a-borough,156753 explains that:
• The Buttonwoods neighborhood originated as a planned public resort community in 1871.
• The Buttonwood Beach Association, acting as a land development company—not a private HOA—was legally obligated to plat and maintain public streets to support the sale and access of lots.
• This public designation was recorded with the Warwick Town Clerk and remains valid unless formally rescinded by the Warwick City Council.
• Public funds from the City of Warwick continue to maintain infrastructure in the area, including streetlights—further reinforcing public ownership and responsibility.
• Even efforts to create a “privacy committee” and restrict access were legally challenged and curtailed due to their conflict with public access laws.

While signs may suggest limited access, the legal and municipal documentation tells a different story. Based on this, I still believe that tagging these roads as access=permissive—acknowledging that public use is allowed but may be discouraged informally—is the most accurate reflection of the situation. It recognizes the historical public designation and city maintenance, while also respecting the visible (if unenforceable) signage.

My goal continues to be the responsible and accurate representation of on-the-ground conditions. I welcome further discussion, and I’m happy to engage in the forum if the community feels this needs broader consensus. That said, I do hope the evidence provided is considered before assuming the tagging was incorrect or potentially harmful.

Thank you again for your engagement and for the work you do to ensure OSM remains reliable and well-managed.

Thank you both for your thoughtful responses and for explaining the tagging conventions. I genuinely appreciate the clarification, and I now understand that access=* is based on legal rights, not just physical access. That was my misunderstanding, and I apologize for any confusion or disruption caused by my edits.

To your question—I’ve already corrected the changes here and will identify if any other locations need to be corrected or discussed further. I want to make sure the data aligns with community standards.

I also want to kindly ask if the requirement to post in the community forum before any access tag changes could be reconsidered. I completely understand the need for consensus and transparency, especially in complex or disputed cases. However, for small, good-faith corrections—especially when there’s visible signage or other supporting evidence—it may be more practical to allow experienced contributors some discretion. I’d be glad to engage on the forum when something is ambiguous or potentially controversial, but I hope that a middle ground could be considered for routine edits.

Lastly, if a “No Trespassing” sign is posted by a private individual, does that alone justify tagging a road as access=private? I’d appreciate guidance on how to evaluate the legitimacy of such signs and determine whether a road is truly private or publicly accessible, particularly when services like mail or trash collection still occur.

Thanks again for your time and engagement. I enjoy contributing to OSM and want to ensure my efforts continue to be accurate, constructive, and in line with community values.

Thanks! Should this be a residential road instead of service?

Hi there! Curious, is there a new "no trespassing" sign? I surveyed this pretty recently and the only sign aside from the road name was a "beware of turtles" on each end.

With the new section of North Beacon St just above Parsons St, wouldn't you say that it should be 'foot=no'?

There is a sign but access talks to whether the road is physically restricted (gate). From the Wiki: “Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not whether the object is privately owned or not. Use ownership=private or operator:type=private to record this kind of status. For example, a privately owned road with public access may be tagged like any other road with public access – without access=* tag, or with the explicit access=permissive.
Unfortunately as of 2023 access=private is widely used as a duplicate of access=permissive as well as ownership=private and should not be expected to match the originally intended meaning.” In my survey, each house receives mail delivery as well as trash and recycling pickup. This and the fact that the roads were wide open without any gates led me to feel that “access=permissive” (which is how they were previously tagged) is the most appropriate.