Maple St / Old Maple St is a bit confusing on the ground. I’ve updated the previous edit to reflect MassGIS road data alongside on-the-ground signage. MassGIS shows the corridor primarily as Maple St, but it also supports a short segment near the State Police barracks being labeled as “Old Maple St,” which corresponds with the physical sign at that location. I’ve kept the overall roadway as Maple St while retaining that small signed section as Old Maple St for accuracy and consistency with both addressing and observed signage.

Now that we’ve discussed it further, I think it’s fine as mapped currently since the street signs support the existing naming on the ground.

It is admittedly confusing where the roadway uses different names at opposite ends of the intersections, which is what led to my interpretation. I was mapping based on the available signage/data and not trying to create extra work or conflict.

Please stop making unnecessary changes. This street name can be verified here. Your edits are becoming counterproductive and are creating issues where none existed.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/22+W+Service+Rd+Ext,+Boston,+MA+02210/@42.3495448,-71.0472119,3a,37.5y,153.19h,98.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0lEa8hRlGI5z3IEoQXESDQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-8.78184536802749%26panoid%3D0lEa8hRlGI5z3IEoQXESDQ%26yaw%3D153.19419383960698!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37a8036509571:0x4dd5ec0cecb04674!8m2!3d42.3493278!4d-71.047369?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUyMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

According to the official MassGIS roadway data, this is classified as a local road, not a busway. The mapping I added was based on both that data and on-site survey, not arbitrary interpretation. The service roads also logically connect to each other as part of the same access network, which is why they were mapped continuously.

Additionally, the segments where I previously had the roads are actively used by pedestrians and function more like shared-access areas than dedicated bus-only corridors. That was also confirmed during survey. Mapping them as disconnected or reclassifying everything as a busway does not reflect the actual layout or usage very well.

Please stop making changes simply for the sake of changing things.

A lot of your changes are incorrect per https://gis.data.mass.gov/datasets/massgis::massgis-massdot-roads/explore

You may disagree with the classification outcome, but dismissing the layer outright is not supported by the official documentation.

From the official functional classification website itself: “this layer shows both the state and federal classification of roadways (F_F).”
https://gis.data.mass.gov/datasets/MassDOT::functional-classification

Additionally, the MassDOT Road Inventory Data Dictionary explicitly defines F_F as “Federal Functional Class.”
https://www.mass.gov/doc/road-inventory-data-dictionary/download

Also, from the website I provided: “this layer shows both the state and federal classification of roadways.”

Given that, and based on the classifications shown in the official viewer provided, the current tagging is now correct per the state’s own published data. Please don’t change it again.

That interpretation is clearly incorrect. The map I used was the official site:
https://gis.data.mass.gov/datasets/MassDOT::functional-classification

It explicitly shows the roadway classifications for all the roads used under the state’s own guidelines.

If the map were simply showing all airport roads as “minor arterials,” then roads leading directly into the airport that are clearly motorway-standard and already mapped as motorway would also fall under that same logic, which obviously does not make sense from an OSM classification standpoint.


The classification viewer clearly distinguishes different hierarchy levels across the airport road network. Based on that data, the roads I corrected were correct per the state’s classification.

Thanks for the debate—this actually pushed me to take another look at the MassDOT functional classification maps. Based on that, a number of these airport approach/terminal roads were indeed classified incorrectly per the state system.

I’ve updated the tagging to reflect that classification per the MassDOT data. Appreciate the discussion.

Lane count alone does not determine OSM highway classification. The OSM wiki defines highway=primary as “a major highway linking large towns.” In urban areas, it generally refers to major arterial routes that are important parts of the regional transportation network.

These airport roads primarily serve terminals, parking garages, rental car facilities, and airport operations rather than functioning as regional through routes. The wiki also notes that highway classification should be based on a road’s role in the network, not simply physical characteristics such as width or number of lanes.


MassDOT functional classification also does not directly translate into OSM tagging. OSM maps the real-world function and usage of a road. Since these roads mainly provide internal airport access and destination traffic within airport property, highway=service is a more appropriate classification in my view.

These are definitely not footways. The corridors are wide enough for vehicles and function more like shared-access streets or plazas than pedestrian paths. There’s even signage allowing emergency vehicle access, which further suggests they are intended to accommodate vehicles. highway=pedestrian seems more appropriate, though highway=service could also be a reasonable type.

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

Unfortunately this change is not consistent with the official city GIS map. Please see the referenced data for alignment: https://www.axisgis.com/cambridgema

Additionally, MassGIS is not always a reliable or authoritative source for street-level naming in this context.

At-grade crossings and signals don’t automatically make a road “primary.” These segments don’t function like primary roads—they carry through traffic with limited to no access.

Some sections don’t even have crossings, reinforcing that they operate more like a controlled corridor than a typical primary road.

They’re also comparable to the southern portions of Route 1, which are already tagged as motorway, so there’s a consistency argument as well.

They may not be perfect motorways, but calling them primary clearly understates their role.

Surveyed today while running. I did my best to capture the one-way changes, but the ongoing construction made it a bit confusing—happy to take another look if something’s off.

Going forward, please map these as driveways or parking aisles rather than service roads. They do not function as general service roads and should be tagged in line with their actual on-the-ground use per OSM guidelines.

Thanks for taking the time to survey in person—I appreciate that level of effort and your willingness to provide photo evidence.

I also ran this segment after your edit and did not observe any street sign indicating “Horne St.” The buildings along this stretch are addressed as Sprague Street, and the municipal GIS/city map reflects this as an offshoot rather than a separately named road.

It’s possible that “Horne” refers to a building or property name rather than the roadway itself, which can sometimes be mistaken for a street sign in the field.

I’m not reverting based on preference, but on consistency with addressing and authoritative mapping sources. If you can share the time-stamped photo, I’m happy to review and reconcile it with the existing data so we can ensure the map reflects what’s actually on the ground.

Hello, I’m not sure where the name “Horne St” was sourced from, but the buildings along this segment are clearly addressed as Sprague Street. Additionally, the city map shows this as an offshoot of Sprague Street rather than a separately named road.

Please rely on verifiable sources such as official signage or municipal GIS data, and avoid adding unsupported or unverified street names.