Nah, I’m manually tracing it mainly on Maxar.

Hi Patrick,
I'm unsure if you're tagging these ways correctly. You've tagged almost all of these roads in this and your previous changesets as "highway=residential", but my understanding is that, for minor roads like driveways and parking aisles, they should be tagged "highway=service". Could you please review your previous five changesets?
Always open for discussion,
David (azsr)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89523905

Thanks for making the changes promptly!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89525297

Hi, thanks for your response!

For point 2, I'm mainly thinking of two ways, both of which are from previous changesets:
Darling St. way/19362747/history , you appeared to extend the way into the right-of-way of some high-voltage transmission lines. From what I can tell on Maxar, the road extends into a small trail which is impassable to cars.
Cut-through between James and Edman Sts, across from Corona Dr. way/836924262/history , As far as I can tell there is no road here.

Could you please check those ways?
Thanks!
David (azsr)

Hi, thanks for contributing! However, I have a few concerns with this changeset and your two previous ones:
1. I noticed you tagged most of these roads with "highway=residential". This has a specific meaning in OSM, which is a road that generally gives access to multiple residences. In my opinion, some of your roads would be better tagged as "highway=service", such as the access roads to the airport and many of the single-family driveways.
2. Some of your "highway=residential" do not seem to exist. I'm referencing Maxar Premium Imagery, which is the most recent imagery for this area and is leafless, making it the best imagery for validating contributions.
Can you please double-check your contributions? I'm open for discussion.

Thanks,
David (azsr)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89375901

Hi, thanks for contributing! I noticed you tagged the new service road with "access=customers". I'm not sure this is appropriate because this service road primarily gives access to the loading docks in the back of the store. This road would most often be used by suppliers restocking the store, and customers wouldn't really have a reason to go back there. If you don't object, in changeset/89256331 I have removed this tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88980091

Hi! Thanks for your contribution! I edited your restriction slightly in changeset/89168490 . I changed the via member to the cross-street to make it clearer that the restriction was turning onto Davisville Rd, and I changed the restriction to "restriction:conditional=no_left_turn @ (weight>5st)" from your "... (trucks>5t)" because the sign seemed to ban all overweight vehicles and because US "tons" are not the same as metric tons, so they need to be st for short tons.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88976115

Hey, how accurate are these? I recently stumbled upon one that was apparently added in Rhode Island in a multi-family house. After some sleuthing, I realized that the weightlifting club in question was not in RI, but in SLC, UT, and that (somehow) one of the previous owner/manager's personal address was listed as the address. Can we please get some quality assurance on this dataset?

Hi, I was wondering if either of you have any thoughts on my last comment. If not, I'll go through and change the highways according to my comments.

Thanks,
David (azsr)

Hey, thanks for editing this. I've extended upon your work in changeset/84985256, hope you don't mind!

Regards,
David
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84688815

Hi, thanks for contributing. I've expanded upon your edits in changeset/84912609

I simplified the geometry of your service roads; I'm not sure that it really adds much to the map data. However, I'm open to a second opinion.

Best,
David
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84802770

Hi, thanks for contributing. This service road leads to Narrow Lane Orchard, a pick-your-own orchard operation. As such, I think access=destination is more suitable. I've changed it and added other details in changeset/84911978

Sorry for bugging you so much on your changesets :)

Thanks,
David
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84759896

Looks good! Thanks!

Hi, so I just got back from my drive around the area. I'd still maintain making the service roads access=yes/no access tag. I noticed that the long, warehouse-seeming buildings are actually filled with multiple businesses per building, including a couple of car mechanics, a signs&c printing shop, and others. As there are legitimate reasons for people to access these shops on a regular basis, I don't think that access=private is appropriate. There will be some sequences on Mapillary soon.

What do you think?

Best,
azsr

So I just came back from a trip there, and access to the complex is clearly posted with signage saying "No Tresspassing/Private Property/No Unauthorized Access/6 AM - 5 PM/Mon. thru Fri./Police will be notified"
(Images will be uploaded to Mapillary soon). It's pretty clear that it should be access=private during those times. I now agree to tag all roads on the school grounds access=private just to make sure that some end users wouldn't try to route on it.

In general, the towns in Rhode Island are really lax about trespassing enforcement. As a (former) student in the area, I remember seeing people walk their dogs, practicing on sports fields, &c even during school hours. North Kingstown even has an ordinance declaring all the roads inside their high school complex as public roads (https://library.municode.com/ri/north_kingstown/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIIREOR_CH11MOVETR_ARTIINGE_S11-7ROWISEHISCCO) and I wouldn't be surprised if this was also the de facto case with other schools. What probably makes the Davisville Academy unique within the school district is that it is a special school for children with particular educational needs, so access to their grounds is understandably more restricted.

On another note, I'm not sure the extra tail you added to the school should be highway=service. The roadway is quite narrow and, even though a car probably could drive through it, it would probably be with less than a foot on each side. I think a better tag for the highway on the eastern side of the school would be highway=path. Thoughts?

tl;dr: Agree to access=private, but not generally the case in RI. Tail of newly added service road should be highway=path.

Best,
azsr

Hi. Instead of doing that wonky thing to get the inner rough/bunker area, you can use multipolygons: https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/#drawing-multipolygons This allows you to draw the outer boundary, the inner boundary, and then combine them by pressing 'c'.

Best,
azsr
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84836070

Hey there. Since you haven't responded, I have added back in the area in changeset/84853698

azsr

Hi, thanks for contributing. I'm not too sure that access=private is appropriate here as it's an industrial complex, which generally does not have access controls. I'll drive down there soon to make sure though.

Thanks,
azsr
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84740480

Hi, thanks for contributing. I just extended out your service roads and parking areas, hope you don't mind!
changeset/84853061

Best,
azsr
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84699486

Hi, thanks for contributing. I was wondering why you classified the service road as "access=private" given that it is on public property (Davisville Academy, a special public school of North Kingstown). It is my impression that public access to publicly-owned school grounds is permitted. I skimmed through North Kingstown's ordinances and could not find anything which would seem to explicitly restrict access to public schools other than the general trespassing law, which basically says "leave if you're told to leave". I'm open to a second opinion, though.

Thanks,
azsr
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84688003