| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5152429 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | This is 1116, per Tax Parcels, but there's a node that says 11324. That's NE 100m, says Tax Parcels. My guess is that Meola's production is at 1134, and the shop is at 1116, and for whatever reason their web site just says 1134, but this is actually wrong. Needs an on-ground check of what is really going on. (Does not need unhelpful poking of notes by distant armchair mappers!) |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163584347 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Ba5eba11nut ♦6 | I live here and can confirm (personally consumed likely gallons by this point) that the shop is at 1134 main street. there is only dental offices at the 1116 building. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Ba5eba11nut ♦6 | ||
| 4831004 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Shady8474729 ♦29 | FLOCK ALPR is on the right side of YMCA drive facing Gorham St. Its facing northbound on Thorndike |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | You added a node for this ALPR on June 12, and this note on June 29. I can't figure out if you think the node is in the wrong place, if you would like editing help, or something else. If you think there's something that needs fixing on the map now, please reopen and explain. (I'm not really local but I've driven by twice in the last few months.) | |
| 5067906 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | I find the exit markings here confusing. OsmAnd told me to turn at 5B5C when really the right answer was 5B. The signage on the ground is that 5B is the right turn to go NW on Thorndie and 5C brings you to Gorham. It looks like the part from the 5B split to Gorham is still marked trunk/motorway. I would propose: moving the 5C designation from where it is to the split of the ramps for Gorham, and maybe marking the last NE chunk now motorway, past the turn to Gorham south, as ramp (link), as surely the speed limit drops as you approach the light, and once there's a "30" sign or whatever, it's ramp not motorway. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | I've adjusted the post-5B/5C split way to link. While personally I feel like going straight feels like "staying on, get off at the next exit", I see the point that it is signed 5C to continue straight. Thus I think the nav program issue is that exit refs are designed to be where the exit splits from the motorway, and that's just not the reality here; those refs should really be relations sort of like turn restrictions. I'm calling this good enough as anything further is debatable. | |
| 4009746 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | new ramp alignment, 2 lanes |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | dannmer ♦20,382 | mapped as 2 lanes | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | gdt ♦643 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | My note described two issues: alignment and lanes. You changed the #lanes to 2, which is great, but the geometry was not updated. Why did you close the note? I'm asking because I seem to frequently run into situations where people who seem to be not local close notes when the map issue that the note is about remains. (I looked at MassGIS 2023 imagery, and construction was far enough along that it showed the new location of the ramp, so I updated the map. This construction felt newer to me at the time, so I didn't expect that early April 2023 would have had enough on-the-ground changes. Many other imagery sources still show the old location.) | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | New imagery now available. Re-aligned. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | gdt ♦643 | ||
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | Are you local and have you driven through the new ramp? I just downloaded data and I don't see any edits from you. Can you point me to the cahngeset? With my edit from the 2023 imagery showing in-process construction, maybe this is ok. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | Odd... OSM was having connectivity issues this morning and it didn't stick I guess. Anyways, it's available on ESRI if you want to map it. As mapped, it is not accurate | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | (I'm guessing you are not local. I've driven through this ramp many times, before, during and after construction.) There are two ESRI entries in JOSM's available layers. "ESRI World Imagery" and "ESRI Word Imagery (Clarity) Beta". I loaded Clarity and it is clearly pre-construction. The ramp is only one lane, and it's in the old place, with tighter entrance and exit curves. The non-Clarity shows 2 lanes (the current state), and you can see disturbed dirt where the old ramp was. The alignment from map data to non-Clarity is very good, and the issue is a nitpick that a few more nodes in curves are appropriate. I just added a few and moved the ramp sub-meter in a few places. I have never been clear on how good the alignment is of anything except MassGIS, which is done with ground control and an accuracy spec, and I've checked it myself with RTK - it's usually dead on at the 15 cm level. But this imagery is aligned to MassGIS 2023 quite well, so I'm going with it. I'll leave the note open for you to comment if you like, and I think we should close. | |
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | Looks good as mapped now. | |
| 11 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | Thanks for the reply, and for pointing out the ESRI imagery. I had given up on that over the years as low resolution and usually quite old. | |
| 5066807 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | The name of this building is confused. Summons for juror service say "Lowell Judicial Center" (but they also fail to mention the parking garage right in front), and the sign over the grand main entrance says "Cornelius. F. Kiernan Judicial Center" |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | Mystery solved. In September 2023 the building was renamed, and the Jury Commissioner's forms seem not to have caught up. I'll fix it. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | fixed, with old_name | |
| 4640161 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | It seems very likely these sidewalks go under the building and connect to the other side, but I don't think they should be added without on-the-ground confirmation that it's really true that you can walk this way, as pedestrian routing to a wrongly-marked-accessible way is very bad. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | I still don't think they should have been added with on-the-ground confirmation :-) but today I walked on both sides of the bridge and under the building and indeed it connects like you think it ought to. | |
| 3128233 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | survey - 2021 imagery is too old |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦54,213 | MassGIS 2023 imagery shows nothing here. Please elaborate on what is missing or what should be surveyed. It doesn't seem like anything needs to done based on note test. If nothing needs to be done, please kindly close the note. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | The area is in the process of being improved and it looks like a construction site on April 1, 2023. It is pretty likely that it's significantly different now, and would benefit from a local mapper. (New imagery will probably be flown April 2025 and available maybe January 2026, if past patterns continue.) | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | Today I actually looked at it in person. That's 31 months after the 2023 imagery. The equipment you can see in the 2023 imagery is gone, but it's just dirt and some mild chaos, looking like nothing has happened in a long time and nothing is likely to happen. It's tagged brownfield, which doesn't really fit, but it fits better than any other landuse tag (because the people that make up landuse tags don't seem to really value the geography concept of landuse, probably). Thus I'm closing the note, and sooner or later if something happens we'll need an update, but the situation on the ground seems stable now. | |
| 4724715 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | Papa Razzi is gone and this has been reconstructed. Developer says,fuzzily, 3 restaurants and a bank. Needs an on-the-ground survey. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | surveyed | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | ||
| 4986617 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | While searching the web about Conico, I came across "Crose Nest" and "Evergreen Room", which might be one thing or two, perhaps an herb shop, and also a tea room and cocktail bar. I haven't really noticed it driving by, and it needs an on-the-ground survey to figure out what it really is. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | Added based on crose nest website and drive-by survey as good enough for now. | |
| 4839948 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | Probably construction is done. Perhaps this is 13. Perhaps Unit 10 is "brightpath", a daycare facility (seen on entrance sign). Needs field check. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | Construction is done; this is 13; Brightpath is really there, or at least there's a sign on the building. | |
| 4962408 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | Hydrant is in need of field checking, as it is drawn from memory and placed by where LIDAR shows a FD pond. Also needs ref= tagged. |
| 2498857 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | Land owned by Stow Municipal Affordable Housing Trust. Current use is conservation. No evidence of protection. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | L3 and MassGIS openspace updated. parcel has been split, now owned by town with SCT CR. | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | tagged as conservation, so withdrawing status unclear note | |
| 3374667 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | hydrant, water |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | Added, and new note with residual issues created. | |
| 2126629 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | looks like a stone wall sort of along town line in imagery - needs field checking |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | new LIDAR is clear enough for me to 95%+ say there's a stone wall | |
| 3965369 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | jakerbreaker ♦33 | intersection and lights don't seem right, weird lane situation |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | I have redone the intersection. Probably needs some splitting and lane markings. Perhaps could use a separate way from eastbound 62 turn lane to Central, but that can't have route 15 as you don't drive there when going SE. Indeed, the actual experience of this intersection is a little messy. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | I should have said @jakerbbreaker please close if you think this is good enough, or let me know what you think. | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | Having driven through here while navigating with OSM data, it seems ok. @jakerbreaker please feel free to reopen if you think something needs doing, but it's been 6 months. | |
| 4463001 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | Closed as of May 2, 2024 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | It's a building label, not a restaurant tag, looking at the default render. So the question is: is the map incorrect, and if so, how should it be changed. Since you're anonymous and can't be contacted, I'll give this 30 days for clarification and after that consider it closable. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | JessAk71 ♦1,642 | Assuming this is referring to the dinning hall but anyway it is unclear... | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | I think it's likely the anonymous note creator was referring to the dining hall, but they have not clarified. It isn't usual practice to remove building names from buildings where the previous use has ended; a town next to me has various 'Foo Bank' names, etched in stone on the building -- but the bank is long gone. Given that the original note was just one word -- and can't be acted on anyway, given the lack of acceptance of CT -- and that there's been no followup, I'm going to close this. Anonymous should feel free to sign up for OSM, accepting the CT, and create a new note that clearly explains how the contents of the map database is incorrect or incomplete. | |
| 4816523 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | There is a long curve on LIDAR that does not look natural, and there was some land art. Needs a field check to determine what is really going on. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | dannmer ♦20,382 | Note author added art feature | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | gdt ♦643 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | Still needs looking at. My notes are intended for other locals, not to be closed by people who have never been there. | |
| 4935119 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | This building is present but looking somewhat abandoned, and there were jersey barriers blocking off many of the parking entrances, such that you could drive through, e.g. when detoured due to 62 being closed, but there's no way to park properly. Needs on-the-ground survey when construction is done because it's not clear if those were temporary for the detour, or if "detour" was spraypainted on barriers that were there anyway. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Ktr101 ♦32 | I suspect that they are temporary for the detour, as I drove through here today and noticed the same thing. The latest ESRI shows no barriers, so I suspect that they were added to prevent people from driving out of the detour, as they covered every possible exit in order to keep everyone moving. | |
| 4882742 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | The Blue Coyote is long gone, but despite having just driven by I can't tell you what's here. Needs a survey. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | gdt ♦643 | There's an empty building that still has a blue coyote sign, I think. Calling it good enough. | |
| 591828 | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | This is tagged leisure=recreation_ground from the openspace import, but from looking at the imagery it looks forested. So it could be leisure=nature_reserve landuse=conservation, but it also seems as if it's just been bought for the future and not in use. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | dannmer ♦20,382 | Should this be updated to nature reserve? | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | Hard to say; someone who is actually local and has been there on the ground should decide what to do. As in the vast majority of cases, my notes are intended for local mappers. | |
| 612220 | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | opened | gdt ♦643 | This property is apparently not part of the golf course, and is being discussed for development. Needs splitting. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | dannmer ♦20,382 | Looks like this isn't mapped as part of the golf course anymore, is there anything that needs to be done here? | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | gdt ♦643 | It's still a very large parcel with unclear status and no representation. I just asked someone in the town government about it. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | ok as mapped |