The website tag was flagged by OSM as having an invalid URL.

Again, both my survey and street-level imagery clearly show the street sign placement. The sign is not located on the opposite side of Blue Hill Ave and marks the endpoint of Clarkwood St. There is no signage indicating the name continues onto those connector links, which supports that they are not part of the named roadway.

I checked the same Boston city map you’re referencing—when fully zoomed in on Clarkwood St, the link segments do not display a name. That indicates they are not consistently or authoritatively labeled as extensions of the street.

Additionally, my survey shows the street sign is not located on the opposite side of Blue Hill Ave. The sign placement clearly marks the termination of Clarkwood St and does not support the name carrying across onto those connector links.

Additionally, your recent edits and changeset comments are not constructive. Repeatedly reapplying disputed changes without providing verifiable sources, along with vague or insufficient changeset comments, makes it difficult for others to review and collaborate.

Per OpenStreetMap Wiki expectations, changeset comments should clearly explain the rationale for edits and reference sources when there is disagreement. Simply asserting changes without evidence is not sufficient.

Please focus on verifiable data, provide clear justification in your changeset comments, and avoid reintroducing contested edits without new supporting sources. This will help keep the map accurate and maintain a productive editing environment.

I understand your concerns, but the edits you’re making don’t align with OpenStreetMap Wiki guidance.

Road names in OSM must be verifiable. These segments are connector/link roads to Blue Hill Ave, and there is no evidence (signage, official records, or authoritative GIS) that they carry the same name as the main road. Extending a name beyond where it is actually applied is incorrect.

I have personally verified this on the ground—the street signage clearly indicates where the named road terminates, and these link segments fall beyond that point. They are not signed as part of the named roadway.

Municipal GIS and official city maps are valid and widely accepted sources in OSM, and in this case they align with field observation.

Routing is not a justification for adding unverified names. Generic instructions like “turn right” are expected when a way is unnamed. Adding names purely to influence routing guidance introduces bad data and is discouraged.

This is standard practice in OSM: do not extend names past their signed or officially recognized limits, and do not assign names to link roads without verification.

If you have a reliable source showing these segments are officially named, please share it. Otherwise, these names should be removed to maintain data accuracy.

Stop extending road names beyond where they terminate. These segments are connector links, not continuations of the named road. Please refer to the official city map, which clearly shows these only function as links between Blue Hill Ave and are not independently named. Use verified sources (signage or municipal GIS) before applying names.

Thanks, I appreciate the follow-up. Yes—please remove any names that can’t be verified via street signs, official trail maps, or municipal GIS. If there’s no confirmed name, it’s best to leave it unnamed. Let me know if you have any questions on any specific cases.

This section was previously tagged as pedestrian=yes, and that is appropriate. The absence of a sidewalk does not mean pedestrian access is prohibited. There are no posted restrictions or legal prohibitions against foot traffic on this road. Additionally, the presence of a marked bike lane indicates that the roadway is intended to accommodate non-motorized users, which includes pedestrians where permitted.

Please avoid removing pedestrian access tags unless there is clear signage, legal restriction, or authoritative source indicating otherwise.

Stop adding names to the off-ramps. These are ramp links, not named roads. This is also clearly reflected in the town map. Please verify against authoritative sources such as municipal GIS data before applying names.

This edit is incorrect. I have personally surveyed these roads and verified the layout using the town GIS. “Old Maple St” is only signed indicating the turn from Maple Street (MA 62) to where Kirkbride Dr is located—it is not a distinct, addressable street. All properties in this area are addressed as Maple St.

Please rely on verifiable sources such as official signage or municipal GIS data, and avoid making unsupported or arbitrary changes.

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.