I think changing this to 'road under construction' vs. private is more appropriate.

In the future, please spell out the name completely (Court should not be abbreviated when entered in as the road name).

I would caution you that some edits you've made don't reflect the situation on the ground. Your edits have overwritten some of my and others firsthand surveys.

Yes, they should. Just because it has limited hours doesn't mean it's private. I personally conducted a survey during one of their time windows and it was fine to walk around.

There was a total of seven named service roads here. Not sure if you really conducted a thorough survey.

Actually, disregard my previous comment.

I read this on another busway: Per OSM Wiki, "service"tag should still be used for service roads "even if only used by buses e.g. for access to a building, bus station, or parking and not for through-traffic as part of a busway."

I changed the road type to busway. Seems most applicable.

This should not be 'no' for foot and bike. There's a sidewalk here that many use.

Kilo, my changes were based on the survey that I conducted.

Thoreau Path was a giant pedestrian street, could probably even be designated as a service road since there was a service vehicle on one side and another vehicle could easily get by on the other side. Here's a link that even shows some of it: https://urbnparks.com/boston/thoreau-path/

As far as Bowdoin Sq, there was a street sign and those were small pedestrian streets with another sign inside of it for 'Norman Herr Way'.

Hi again,

For this situation located here and my first-hand experience on the ground, 'access=permissive' or 'access=destination' are the most appropriate. I will share my rationale of how I came to the conclusion to use access=destination.

From the Wikis:

Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not whether the object is privately owned or not. Use ownership=private or operator:type=private to record this kind of status. For example, a privately owned road with public access may be tagged like any other road with public access – without access=* tag, or with the explicit access=permissive.

Unfortunately as of 2023 access=private is widely used as a duplicate of access=permissive as well as ownership=private and should not be expected to match the originally intended meaning.

However, since access=permissive indicates that access can be revoked, (Ie, a gate that is commonly left open) Permissive doesn't seem applicable since there is nothing to physically restrict access located here.

Access=destination seems the most fitting since the intended use is to stop navigation apps as you desire: ""no thru traffic" / "local traffic only"

Hi,
This was a bad edit. I have surveyed the road and it exists.

Hi RHMV,
I see you're new to OSM. I have personally surveyed these roads and they are not a candidate for access=private. I have changed them to access=destination as this seems the most fitting for the situation.

Please see below note on Wiki on tagging roads private:

"Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not whether the object is privately owned or not."

Hi, I'm updating the access since I recently surveyed it.

Thanks Elliott! This isn’t the first time that I’ve had to correct mistakes that a Lyft user made. How do I report the issue to the DWG next time?

The GIS is:

https://gis.vgsi.com/SomervilleMAMap/index.html

I don’t fully understand this. Isn’t GIS every towns official source that should be used to verify roads against? Typically each town has one. What should be used as a source?

Fixed.

I was unable to capture all the names on my run last night. If you're able to help with the names, it would be most appreciated!

This cemetery has named service roads in it.

The sign for Dante Terrace doesn't even say private way on it. This shouldn't even be set to access=permissive. The lot could be tagged as such but the road shouldn't.

https://gis.vgsi.com/SomervilleMAMap/index.html