Per typical OSM mapping norms, "roads" inside cemeteries should be mapped as "service" as they are not part of the regular road network. If you disagree, please provide more information to support your recent change. There has been OSM community discussion on this topic recently. Thanks.

Hello. Cemetary "streets" are not part of the regular municipal road network so I don't think changing them from highway=service is appropriate. This could cause mapping routers to send people through the cemetery. Please provide your reasoning for making this change after reviewing the wiki guidance. Thanks.

osm.wiki/Tag:highway=service

BTW, are you a Town of Concord employee? Not that it matters too much but I'm curious. Thanks.

Sorry...I meant to say "path" for the original tag....though track has been used too in the past too looking at the way history.

OSM is an international project with tagging semantics and mapping norms that don't always comport with local/national nomenclature/practice. Per wiki, a highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads that are generally "considered usable by motor cars".
osm.wiki/Tag:highway=unclassified?uselang=en

Personally knowing the road and knowing the town doesn't actively maintain it for cars, I think the original highway=track is a better tag for the unpaved portion of Estabrook Road.
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

There are also no provisions in the decision explicitly saying cars are ok so I wonder why the staus quo tagging, sans a motor_vehicle=yes, was changed.

Tagging choices have downstream consequences. Do you want mapping routers to be actively routing people in cars down Estabrook?

Right. You didn't. I was thinking more about a few of your other changesets and should've commented there.

I'm not sure what you mean by that distinction. Humans are driving the farm field equipment, no? Regardless, we're documenting what we see on the ground...and it looks like "track" per the wiki: "track roads are mostly used for agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, and similar activities on open land."
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

I think this track and others like it are worth mapping (they were mapped):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4303503,-71.3331149,3a,75y,226.62h,67.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so16C9v0shH1J-HZh5LbrvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Yes. However, per Concord GIS parcel maps I'm not even convinced the land is "private".

The data you deleted was mostly "highway=track". What "trails" are you referring to? Looking at recent ortho imagery, I still see tracks in the fields so your changes (deletions) are not appropriate. Please revert your changeset. Sure, some tracks are more prominent than others...and there is a threshold of what should be mapped and what doesn't qualify...but your edit seemed to be en masse.

Per OSM community norms, outright deleting data is a relatively drastic step... especially if it's very obvious on imagery.

Listing a reason of "...over private..." is especially triggering for reasons listed in that wiki link. Thanks.

Hello. I think you are confounding private access with private ownership. Per OSM wiki: "The access=private tag is indicating that the object is not to be used by the general public. Access is only with permission on an individual basis."

I believe the general public (delivery persons for instance) does not need to request permission individually to access this road. I've noticed you've been changing quite a few access tags. Please read the wiki.
osm.wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate

Comporting to the wiki, I think you'll find access=private is a relatively rare tag to use on private roads in this area. Thanks.

Hello. Being on private land is not a justification for removing accurate data. Why did you remove these?

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Thanks. BTW, another user on the OSM Slack thought track was good here too.

There are a few of us active on the Vermont and Massachusetts channels on OSM Slack. Always happy to have someone to chat about things...

I haven't been to Bolton in a couple of years but the whole thing being "service" feels a little off given I don't think it's regularly used by wheeled vehicles. The tagging history on this way has vacillated quite a bit. FWIW: I'd vote for track for most of it if not all.

Hello. Indeed. I don't see a need to duplicate the boundary if it's the same.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144974949

I have some familiarity with the litigation of this road. My understanding is this road remains an unmaintained road by the town and therefore not a part of the "general purpose road network". If so, then highway=track is likely a better tag for the unpaved section of Estabrook Road: "The tag highway=track is used for minor land-access roads that are not considered part of the general-purpose road network" (from wiki).

And to confirm: motorized vehicles are indeed allowed on Estabrook Road?(!) Thanks.

I'm incredibly appreciative of having these open natural spaces where I find such peace and benefit to my mental health. However, I think this OSM effort is one of reporting what we see on the ground and/or capturing what a critical mass of people (or the official land manager) name something. Though we're not supposed to "tag for the renderer", I think we should be mindful of how certain tags like leisure=nature_reserve get used downstream and curate appropriately. E.g. would "Panek CR" showing up in AllTrails be useful for wayfinding? I think it'd be more confusing. If the town renames this area in recognition (and publishes a map with it) then I think it'd be appropriate.

The Shurtleff Woods is a bit different because it's of BCT fee ownership and there is a sign on the north end of the property. (BTW, the BCT signage and branding is really nice...the town should enlist their help! <grin>)

I've only recently discovered this corner of Boxborough but it's become one of my favorite stretches of woods within 495.

Thanks for the discussion.

Thanks for the additional info. It's sometimes unclear/subjective to me where the edges of the closed way that gets a "leisure=nature_reserve" should go. This seems to be one of the more important keys that third-party data users use to represent "public open space".

Without immediate local knowledge, I'll look to town maps or other conservation organizations' maps to see where they draw the boundary, and to what it's called in MassGIS Open Space. (usually, these agree...sometimes not). My general rule of thumb is to combine adjacent parcels of the same fee owner if it's consistent with the "land manager's" map/Open Space. e.g. https://www.boxborough-ma.gov/351/Conservation-Trail-Maps

I think there is a line where some map data goes from of use to the general public to of use to a very small number of people and thus better managed with some other tool like AGOL...but again it's a subjective thing. I think "Panek CR" falls below the threshold to get its own "leisure=nature_reserve" and clutters the map...especially because there are no on-the-ground indications of this boundary. Anyways...just wanted to share my view.

Thanks for being involved with land conservation efforts.

I reverted:
osm.org/changeset/144710212

Hello. I’m curious of your reasons to add this Panek CR sub-parcel that is already contained entirely within the “Patch Hill Conservation Area”. I don’t see it referenced on other maps etc. (I had previously merged this sub-parcel to make the larger area.). Thanks.

You're welcome. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of trespass laws in Massachusetts is for unimproved and non-enclosed land, notice must be posted: a "no trespassing" sign, etc.

Regardless, this path clearly exists. So it should at least be mapped with some kind of access tagging. The wiki page I posted above succinctly captures the reasons why.

I'm sensitive to private property rights and map accordingly. But again there is nothing posted.