This change set is incorrect and should be reverted.

Route 99 should also be reclassified between Everett and Charlestown and over the Russel Bridge, as well. then

That makes no sense - US3 and 2A are largely 2-lane primary arterials.

The other mappers are incorrect "Scope of this tag may overlap with highway=footway, which is generally used for narrower, often unnamed, pedestrian pathways and sidewalks."

There's nothing about the function of this that looks and acts like a "pedestrianized" street. It is a set of named footways.

This is a narrow, named pathway. And until your changes now how this set of privately-owned public ways have been tagged.

Sorry, my comment should've said *This is registered but not city owned) "public way". Private "public way" signage is placed to give people information but not designating it as a proper street.

Again, looking at the functionality, which is what should be mapped - this is a (named!) footway.

Functionally, Boardman place isn't wide enough to be a "pedestrianized street" - which is what the pedestrianized tag is supposed to represent. Note the last sentence in the opening pargraphs of the pedestrianised street wiki page. highway=pedestrian

The City's GIS represents all registered (but city-owned) public ways. That is, there is some amount of legal access. Regardless, ownership doesn't imply what to do with the highway tag. The function of the public way, in this case is much more a footway than a pedestrianised street.

Correct - the sign that has the name with pvt way is there but there was an additional sign saying 'authorized access only'.

Boardman Place seems to have the wrong type of highway tag - it is functionally a footway not a pedestrianized street, where vehicles could be expected.

The presence of a green street sign does not imply the presence of a street - only a public way that is in the city's register. In this case, Boardman Pl does not have an easement as seen in the city assessor's map. https://gis.cambridgema.gov/blockmaps/Block_76.pdf

It does seem like there is a street center line (i.e. registered public way) that surrounds 11-15 Boardman St on three sides - perhaps a footway is better for that case?

The presence of a street sign doesn't mean that it is functionally a road - this should probably be a footway even if is in the list of city public ways (and thus, has a street sign).

Residential type is incorrect here: this provides access only to 1 single building - where residential is generally defined as giving access to a residential area - this is a service road type which is not necessarily a driveway (as it is a private way but on the public list of streets).

Last time I travelled Garden there was a "private - authorized access only" sign at the end of the lane.

There is no cycle track between School Street and Bow Street.

Note The Washington Street 'cycle tracks' are not complete and will not be for a while yet -- Union Square/Webster to Beacon should not have any tags showing cycletracks.

Understandable - I think I changed it last week to reflect that but did you undo that change?

The short section of cycle track on Charlestown Avenue doesn't enter the intersection - it ends just before the Green Line viaduct and turns into a shared-use path.

(Not Eliot Bridge, sorry! -- Galen St bridge in Watertown).

Also, I don't see any documentation that the Paul Dudley White path travells with the Charles River Dam Road. The only documentation I've seen have the PDW as the DCR paths that travel in parallel to the River except at Eliot Bridge.

I see the need - I'm struggling to reconcile this with the general direction on the Names part of the OSM wiki, however. The roadway, sidewalk, and separate bike lanes are all part of the same object even if mapped separately. I believe they are all still linked by relation, which seems appropriate. osm.wiki/Names

cycleway=*#:~:text=A%20cycle%20track,%5B1%5D.

Link to Class IV bikeways defines the the separation as "includ(ing), but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking."

The OSM wiki page indicates that "on-street" bike lanes that are protected, separated, or qualify as Class IV bike lanes can be mapped using separate cycleways. Class IV bike lanes are separated by any kind of physical barrier even if at street level/on street.

I would cut this at Exeter for now - markings flexposts were in between Hereford and Exeter; It's kind of OK Exeter to Clarendon but no flexposts. After Dartmouth though, Eversource workers were cutting into pavement (and MARKINGS! gah) in the bike lane space. It's really not even close to done yet.