Please do not create or assume names for features (e.g., “Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn”). Only add names when they can be verified from a street sign, official trail map, or municipal GIS source. If a road or track does not have a verified name, it’s perfectly acceptable to leave the name tag blank.

For roads that are still being built, it’s usually better to tag them as highway=construction (road under construction) rather than just access=no. That helps data users understand the road is temporarily closed due to construction rather than simply restricted. Just a suggestion for future edits—thanks for contributing!

hanks for the clarification — I appreciate the explanation.

In OSM, sidewalks and bike lanes are often mapped separately, but that does not make the roadway centerline foot=no unless pedestrians are legally prohibited from using the roadway itself. In most cases, the presence of a separately mapped sidewalk does not imply a pedestrian access restriction on the road.

Tagging the road foot=no would indicate a legal prohibition (e.g., a limited-access highway), which affects routing and pedestrian networks. If pedestrians are legally allowed to be on the roadway (even if a sidewalk exists), the road should generally not be tagged foot=no.

As a general practice in OSM, access restrictions like foot=no or bike=no should only be added when there is clear on-the-ground signage or a verifiable legal basis. Without that, we risk incorrectly restricting access in the map data.

Hello and welcome to OSM!

I noticed you’ve tagged North First Street with foot=no. Could you share the rationale for that change? I’ve personally surveyed this road and did not observe any signage or legal restrictions prohibiting pedestrian access.

Referencing ‘Town Line’: There is no evidence this is an officially named road. The sign marks the town boundary, not a street name. Please avoid adding or inventing names that are not supported by survey or authoritative data.

There is no evidence this is an officially named road. The sign marks the town boundary, not a street name. Please avoid adding or inventing names that are not supported by survey or authoritative data.

Thanks for sharing the photo and the on-the-ground confirmation. I’ve reverted the changeset. The signage appears to be a recent addition, as I didn’t observe it during my survey (also typically while running) or in available street-level imagery. Appreciate the follow-up—happy mapping!

Hi there! Sunny Ct isn't an actual street name. Verified no buildings carry that address via https://app01.cityofboston.gov/parcelviewer/ and no street sign is present.

Yes — it leads to Concord Turnpike and is labeled that way on the city map.

MassGIS is helpful, but for local road naming the City of Cambridge GIS takes precedence. Since it shows a different name, removing or changing the name should be discussed first.

I’m not saying it’s a motorway. My comment is solely about the road name — the name appears on the city’s official map, which is why I raised the concern about removing it without discussion.

Removing this name without discussion isn’t productive. The road name is present on the city’s official map, and any change should be coordinated with supporting sources.

Thanks for following up and for sharing the survey date and locations — that’s helpful. During my on-the-ground survey, I did not observe signage prohibiting pedestrian access in the portions of the area marked as Pendergast Avenue, and both parking and pedestrian use were clearly occurring at that time. I also recently reviewed available street-level imagery and did not see pedestrian-restriction signage present in those areas. That said, since your survey was conducted more recently than mine, I’m comfortable leaving it tagged as foot=no if you feel that is the most appropriate representation of current conditions.

This is an active railyard, but there are no posted signs prohibiting pedestrian access. Tagging this as foot=no is therefore not accurate. The area is routinely used by pedestrians accessing adjacent parking, which I have personally confirmed through an on-the-ground survey.

I classified those as tracks based on my on-the-ground survey of Salem Common. From what I recall, they’re noticeably wider, which made highway=track the most appropriate classification.

This was incorrect. The road does exist and is listed in the town’s official GIS street map. Its presence was also confirmed through an on-the-ground physical survey. The Lyft-owned aerial imagery appears to be outdated or incomplete in this area.

Thanks for the link — that’s helpful. Given that Ericson Place doesn’t appear on the official Providence street maps, and there were no signs present, I agree the name likely isn’t officially recognized. That said, I’ve removed the name until there’s clear municipal evidence or on-the-ground signage to support it.

I only extended the name to the rest of the road because the portion already named in OSM didn’t cover the full road. Since the name Ericson Place was already present in OSM and also appeared in ARCGIS, it seemed reasonable to extend the existing named road rather than treat it as a separate, unnamed feature.

Fennessey Court doesn’t exist at this location.

Map reference: https://www.chr-apartments.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/Interim_maps_7-Approved3-9-21.pdf