Hello,

Thank you again for the detailed feedback. I want to respectfully reaffirm that I stand by my recent access tagging edits, which were made in good faith and also based on credible public sources.

The City of Warwick’s official GIS system, https://www.axisgis.com/WarwickRI/ clearly shows the roads in question—including those in the Old Buttonwoods area—as public. This supports the view that, despite the presence of “No Trespassing” or “Residents Only” signs, legal public access remains in place.

Additionally, local reporting further clarifies the history and legal status of these roads. A 2020 Warwick Beacon article titled “Buttonwoods is not a fiefdom but rather a borough” https://warwickonline.com/stories/buttonwoods-is-not-a-fiefdom-but-rather-a-borough,156753 explains that:
	•	The Buttonwoods neighborhood originated as a planned public resort community in 1871.
	•	The Buttonwood Beach Association, acting as a land development company—not a private HOA—was legally obligated to plat and maintain public streets to support the sale and access of lots.
	•	This public designation was recorded with the Warwick Town Clerk and remains valid unless formally rescinded by the Warwick City Council.
	•	Public funds from the City of Warwick continue to maintain infrastructure in the area, including streetlights—further reinforcing public ownership and responsibility.
	•	Even efforts to create a “privacy committee” and restrict access were legally challenged and curtailed due to their conflict with public access laws.

While signs may suggest limited access, the legal and municipal documentation tells a different story. Based on this, I still believe that tagging these roads as access=permissive—acknowledging that public use is allowed but may be discouraged informally—is the most accurate reflection of the situation. It recognizes the historical public designation and city maintenance, while also respecting the visible (if unenforceable) signage.

My goal continues to be the responsible and accurate representation of on-the-ground conditions. I welcome further discussion, and I’m happy to engage in the forum if the community feels this needs broader consensus. That said, I do hope the evidence provided is considered before assuming the tagging was incorrect or potentially harmful.

Thank you again for your engagement and for the work you do to ensure OSM remains reliable and well-managed.