| Note | # | Tmstmp UTC | Event | Contributor | Comment | Auto-translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4009746 | 1 | 2023-11-30 18:11 | opened | gdt ♦641 | new ramp alignment, 2 lanes | |
| 2 | 2025-02-09 18:53 | closed | dannmer ♦16,802 | mapped as 2 lanes | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-18 15:40 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 4 | 2025-02-18 15:44 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-11-28 18:57 | closed | ICT_maps ♦3,894 | New imagery now available. Re-aligned. | ||
| 6 | 2025-11-28 20:19 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 7 | 2025-11-28 20:20 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-11-28 23:39 | commented | ICT_maps ♦3,894 | 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 | 2025-11-29 01:34 | commented | gdt ♦641 | (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 | 2025-11-29 02:30 | commented | ICT_maps ♦3,894 | Looks good as mapped now. | ||
| 11 | 2025-11-29 13:40 | closed | gdt ♦641 | 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. | ||
| 5067906 Category: Unknown | 1 | 2025-11-25 17:41 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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. | |
| 5066807 Category: Unknown | 1 | 2025-11-24 23:12 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-11-24 23:43 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-11-24 23:45 | closed | gdt ♦641 | fixed, with old_name | ||
| 4640161 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-24 14:29 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-11-24 23:39 | closed | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2022-04-10 22:30 | opened | gdt ♦641 | survey - 2021 imagery is too old | |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 21:49 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | 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 | 2025-02-24 14:33 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-11-24 23:38 | closed | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-04-23 17:14 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Papa Razzi is gone and this has been reconstructed. Developer says,fuzzily, 3 restaurants and a bank. Needs an on-the-ground survey. | |
| 2 | 2025-11-10 18:15 | commented | gdt ♦641 | surveyed | ||
| 3 | 2025-11-10 18:15 | closed | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 4986617 Category: Unknown | 1 | 2025-10-01 12:05 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-10-01 16:38 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Added based on crose nest website and drive-by survey as good enough for now. | ||
| 4839948 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-07-05 11:53 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Probably construction is done. Perhaps this is 13. Perhaps Unit 10 is "brightpath", a daycare facility (seen on entrance sign). Needs field check. | |
| 2 | 2025-09-21 00:15 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Construction is done; this is 13; Brightpath is really there, or at least there's a sign on the building. | ||
| 2498857 | 1 | 2021-01-15 13:24 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Land owned by Stow Municipal Affordable Housing Trust. Current use is conservation. No evidence of protection. | |
| 2 | 2021-12-30 14:48 | commented | gdt ♦641 | L3 and MassGIS openspace updated. parcel has been split, now owned by town with SCT CR. | ||
| 3 | 2025-09-14 23:06 | closed | gdt ♦641 | tagged as conservation, so withdrawing status unclear note | ||
| 4962408 Category: Unknown | 1 | 2025-09-14 23:06 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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. | |
| 3374667 | 1 | 2022-09-26 13:42 | opened | gdt ♦641 | hydrant, water | |
| 2 | 2025-09-14 23:06 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Added, and new note with residual issues created. | ||
| 2126629 | 1 | 2020-03-21 23:58 | opened | gdt ♦641 | looks like a stone wall sort of along town line in imagery - needs field checking | |
| 2 | 2025-09-11 12:48 | closed | gdt ♦641 | new LIDAR is clear enough for me to 95%+ say there's a stone wall | ||
| 3965369 | 1 | 2023-10-30 20:52 | opened | jakerbreaker ♦33 | intersection and lights don't seem right, weird lane situation | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 13:53 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-02-25 01:43 | commented | gdt ♦641 | I should have said @jakerbbreaker please close if you think this is good enough, or let me know what you think. | ||
| 4 | 2025-09-01 22:29 | closed | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2024-10-03 14:23 | opened | --- | Closed as of May 2, 2024 | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 16:44 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-08-29 17:22 | commented | JessAk71 ♦1,609 | Assuming this is referring to the dinning hall but anyway it is unclear... | ||
| 4 | 2025-08-30 12:27 | closed | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-06-21 19:24 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-08-29 07:44 | closed | dannmer ♦16,802 | Note author added art feature | ||
| 3 | 2025-08-29 10:53 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 4 | 2025-08-29 10:54 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-08-28 22:24 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-09-03 01:38 | commented | Ktr101 ♦30 | 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 | 2025-07-29 23:53 | opened | gdt ♦641 | The Blue Coyote is long gone, but despite having just driven by I can't tell you what's here. Needs a survey. | |
| 2 | 2025-08-28 22:20 | closed | gdt ♦641 | There's an empty building that still has a blue coyote sign, I think. Calling it good enough. | ||
| 591828 | 1 | 2016-06-12 11:17 | opened | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2025-08-26 13:46 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | Should this be updated to nature reserve? | ||
| 3 | 2025-08-26 16:11 | commented | gdt ♦641 | 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 | 2016-07-02 00:09 | opened | gdt ♦641 | This property is apparently not part of the golf course, and is being discussed for development. Needs splitting. | |
| 2 | 2025-08-22 21:19 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | Looks like this isn't mapped as part of the golf course anymore, is there anything that needs to be done here? | ||
| 3 | 2025-08-22 23:09 | commented | gdt ♦641 | It's still a very large parcel with unclear status and no representation. I just asked someone in the town government about it. | ||
| 4577528 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-01-05 20:17 | opened | Rossa Rod | Completely ERROR full---This entire facility and its two parking lots have been re-built (over 1 year ago btw) and needs to be updated. Tesla maps, Apple maps and Google maps are more up-to-date (sat. images) | |
| 2 | 2025-03-03 13:42 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | Looking at the Esri Wayback imagery it appears that the Esri World Imagery is the most up-to-date imagery, the MassGIS is close as well and clearer. | ||
| 3 | 2025-03-04 03:18 | commented | seattlefyi ♦843 | Added some buildings and parking changes from the updated imagery. | ||
| 4 | 2025-08-08 00:14 | commented | gdt ♦641 | What is the date on the ESRI imagery? This has been an active construction site and I am very skeptical of MassGIS 2023 imagery which is more or less April 1. In September they gave a talk about how construction "is going". I looked at various imagery and I don't really see anything that I believe is accurate to how things are. | ||
| 5 | 2025-08-08 00:17 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Apparent post-construction photo at https://sudburyseniorcenter.org/about-us/ | ||
| 6 | 2025-08-08 02:34 | commented | seattlefyi ♦843 | Background timestamp from iD now looks most recent (July 25, 2024). Just made some edits from that -- the photo from that website looks like maybe taken from coords (42.392282, -71.444266) looking northeast. | ||
| 4640843 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-25 00:53 | opened | gdt ♦641 | The Town of Hudson describes it as what OSM would call recreation_ground. On imagery, this looks like a maintained field. Were it not maintained, it would become overgrown very quickly. I drove all around the block, looking for access, and didn't see any. This doesn't make sense. This note is asserting that as a map defect, suggesting that a local mapper find out from the town government what's going on, and survey the perimeter more carefully. It may be that there is an entrance on the E side of 70 Cox Street. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-25 02:12 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | I checked this on the Strava heat map and there is a little bit of activtiy which enters via the driveway on the east side of 70 Cox Street. The users (or user) exits the driveway just north of the fenced area you added today and then walks around the perimeter of the mapped field. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-28 17:02 | commented | gdt ♦641 | I drove by and the service road appears to be more for the mystery equipment, at least in winter. I have written to the Recreation director to ask about access. | ||
| 4 | 2025-08-08 00:05 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Thanks -- that's interesting about the heat map user. Town says that the east-of-70-Cox is access and there is parking. I could just about see it driving by, so I've added it. I know think this (not very often used) field is mapped correctly enough. | ||
| 4311792 | 1 | 2024-06-28 20:15 | opened | Fedirko7 ♦32 | I think the road layout here has changed via StreetComplete 58.0 | |
| 2 | 2025-07-31 22:14 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Can you explain how it changed? I'm counting my blessings I haven't been there lately. It looks ok on March 2023 aerials but obviously that's a long time ago. | ||
| 3 | 2025-07-31 22:16 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Also the map shows grass (drawn in 2020) as much larger than the March 2023 imagery. | ||
| 4 | 2025-11-28 18:45 | closed | ICT_maps ♦3,894 | looks like most of the roads were updated a couple days ago. Matches imagery newer than this note. | ||
| 1396145 | 1 | 2018-05-16 23:29 | opened | gdt ♦641 | needs survey to determine boundary - massgis L3 says these three buildings are on the school lot, but that doesn't quite make sense. | |
| 2 | 2025-07-31 20:12 | closed | gdt ♦641 | fixed | ||
| 4885998 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-07-31 19:58 | opened | gdt ♦641 | I find zero evidence that this is Iona Ave. It's not in the MassDOT database and the parcels data does not show a road layout. Speak up if you think it should stay; I'm making a note to self to remove the name in 7 days. | |
| 2 | 2025-07-31 20:01 | closed | gdt ♦641 | The name is from the 2009? EOT roads import. That source now says no road exists. Given that this wasn't added by a mapper, I'm just going to fix it. As always, let me know if you object. | ||
| 4214889 | 1 | 2024-04-25 17:24 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Online Wine and Liquor really here #OsmAnd | |
| 2 | 2025-07-30 00:06 | closed | gdt ♦641 | I have since edited to put things in the right place, after visiting. | ||
| 3902893 | 1 | 2023-09-22 16:12 | opened | gdt ♦641 | This building is 125 in L3 parcels. But it appears to be 129 for businesses located in it. Needs field checking. While at it, see if Merai Liquors is still there, and if there is anything else not mapped. | |
| 2 | 2025-07-30 00:02 | closed | gdt ♦641 | mostly fixed, residue in fixme tags (and it was my note :-) | ||
| 4882744 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-07-29 23:59 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Coding academy shop is for lease, but the rest of the building did not seem as empty as the map makes it look; needs an on-ground survey. | |
| 3833886 | 1 | 2023-08-14 18:59 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Family Delicatessen is 129 | |
| 2 | 2025-07-29 23:57 | closed | gdt ♦641 | fixed | ||
| 3871718 | 1 | 2023-09-04 21:32 | opened | JesseFTW ♦451 | Hummingbird mural via StreetComplete 53.2 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/172632.jpg | |
| 2 | 2025-07-29 23:57 | closed | gdt ♦641 | added | ||
| 3903024 | 1 | 2023-09-22 17:58 | opened | gdt ♦641 | The internet says this closed in December of 2020. Needs urvey to verify and adjust map to current usage, if any. | |
| 2 | 2025-07-29 23:53 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Definitely did not see Blue Coyote today; removed. | ||
| 1524608 | 1 | 2018-09-12 17:09 | opened | --- | Also 71 Main, so reconfirm existence of this location. | |
| 2 | 2025-07-29 23:45 | closed | gdt ♦641 | 71 is across the street; this building is 94A/98/102 and overall 100. Plus 2 Walnut, felixology. I was just there today and I think the map is right (for this building ground floor; I did not patrol shops on the other side of Main Street). I'm therefore closing the note. If you think there is something wrong, please reactivate or open a new one and message me about it. Please explain what is wrong with the map and what should be in the database instead. I'm local and can take a look and fix it. | ||
| 2792635 | 1 | 2021-08-08 18:11 | opened | gdt ♦641 | fowler-kennedy? | |
| 2 | 2025-07-29 21:44 | commented | Agoraphilic ♦139 | Added. | ||
| 3 | 2025-07-29 23:26 | closed | gdt ♦641 | @Agoraphilic: Thanks! | ||
| 2659879 | 1 | 2021-05-07 22:59 | opened | gdt ♦641 | some of this is boardwalk | |
| 2 | 2025-07-26 11:02 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | There's boardwalk mapped to the north, is this what the note is referring to? | ||
| 3 | 2025-07-26 12:44 | closed | gdt ♦641 | No, I meant where I put the note. There is now better LIDAR and between my memory of putting the note and LIDAR I added two boardwalk segments. | ||
| 4876058 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-07-26 10:48 | opened | gdt ♦641 | This parcel is apparently in use as leisure=nature_reserve, but is not marked. Requires someone investigating with Maynard Conservation Commission to understand status and/or on-ground survey. This note replaces one incorrectly closed by a non-local. | |
| 4816732 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-06-21 22:40 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Need to determine if trail is east of feature that looks like stream on LIDAR, or if LIDAR feature is trail. | |
| 2 | 2025-07-26 11:11 | closed | dannmer ♦16,802 | trails as mapped in this area match heat map | ||
| 3 | 2025-07-26 19:06 | reopened | JesseFTW ♦451 | |||
| 4 | 2025-07-26 19:07 | commented | JesseFTW ♦451 | That feature on the LIDAR (the curving one) is really puzzling! It looks like maybe a dry river bed? I don't remember seeing it when I was last there; I'll try and look next time. I'm pretty confident in the layout of the trail, though, as the trail is gray stone, and you can see the gray stone in the right place on imagery. But let's leave this note open a bit longer to hopefully confirm what that feature on the LIDAR actually is! | ||
| 3871715 | 1 | 2023-09-04 21:32 | opened | JesseFTW ♦451 | Additional gravel path; existing path is inaccurate. via StreetComplete 53.2 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/172629.jpg GPS Trace: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JesseFTW/traces/9935879 | |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 19:24 | closed | gdt ♦641 | mostly fixed I think. | ||
| 3871716 | 1 | 2023-09-04 21:32 | opened | JesseFTW ♦451 | Rough Stone stairs via StreetComplete 53.2 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/172630.jpg GPS Trace: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JesseFTW/traces/9935880 | |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 19:24 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Saw steps, and edited to represent them. geometry is better than it was but probably still needs help. | ||
| 3764170 | 1 | 2023-07-03 23:26 | opened | JesseFTW ♦451 | Bench via StreetComplete 53.1 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/159361.jpg | |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 19:24 | closed | gdt ♦641 | added | ||
| 4816524 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-06-21 19:24 | opened | gdt ♦641 | This path does not seem to match my memory of being there yesterday. Needs a real field check. | |
| 3764172 | 1 | 2023-07-03 23:26 | opened | JesseFTW ♦451 | Sculpture via StreetComplete 53.1 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/159362.jpg https://westnordost.de/p/159363.jpg | |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 19:24 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Added, and I saw it too. I placed it differently a bit, because on LIDAR I have aligned the path, I know it wasn't that far off, and it isn't across a stream. (I am perhaps interpreting fumes from LIDAR, but I find LIDAR more reliable than phone gps for placement.) | ||
| 3871717 | 1 | 2023-09-04 21:32 | opened | JesseFTW ♦451 | Additional entry point to the ridge trail. Also, it may be slightly misaligned. via StreetComplete 53.2 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/172631.jpg GPS Trace: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JesseFTW/traces/9935883 | |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 19:08 | closed | gdt ♦641 | aligned to LIDAR and renamed trails to change at junction | ||
| 3764174 | 1 | 2023-07-03 23:26 | opened | JesseFTW ♦451 | Bench via StreetComplete 53.1 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/159364.jpg | |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 00:58 | closed | gdt ♦641 | added | ||
| 4775429 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-05-25 22:49 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Walking by, I saw no sign of Nourish, and their web site is for sale. The internet says long closed. Needs a more thorough field check by a local. | |
| 2 | 2025-06-29 14:07 | commented | Hypsometric ♦3,736 | Updated to vacant shop. Leaving open for someone to update when it is occupied again. | ||
| 2509804 | 1 | 2021-01-24 00:55 | opened | madiener ♦50 | Not maintained; somewhat walkable, but may be difficult with blowdowns and thick layer of leaves | |
| 2 | 2022-10-09 17:08 | commented | bikingaround244 ♦221 | My bike ride router lead me here today and I would I would call it not existent or abandoned. I had to turn around. | ||
| 3 | 2025-04-20 13:49 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Looking at today's map, I don't see the way that's being discussed, so it seems it has been removed and thus this note is done. | ||
| 3861630 | 1 | 2023-08-30 10:47 | opened | gdt ♦641 | This is tagged fee, apparently by someone from the T. There are no space numbers in the resident part, and it's not cleear if you have to pay for a resident parking sticker vs a general resident sticker that also works at the transfer station etc. I took the T at its word for 287, and counted the non-resident spaces and subtracted. | |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 12:44 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | Is there anything that needs to be done here? | ||
| 3 | 2025-04-11 23:01 | closed | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 4048415 | 1 | 2023-12-31 21:11 | opened | AntiCompositeNumber ♦329 | Is this lot actually/still managed by Republic Parking? | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 22:50 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Notes are meant to be for providing information that the map data is wrong or missing some specific information, or as todo markers from local mappers to each other. If you have evidence that the map data is wrong (such as knowing the Republic does not operate this lot), please feel free to re-open and be specific about what is incorrect. | ||
| 3 | 2025-03-29 22:51 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 4 | 2025-03-29 22:51 | closed | gdt ♦641 | If you think the addition was in error, I would suggest commenting on the changeset. | ||
| 5 | 2025-03-30 01:41 | reopened | AntiCompositeNumber ♦329 | |||
| 6 | 2025-03-30 01:42 | commented | AntiCompositeNumber ♦329 | The MBTA parking lot was formerly managed by Republic Parking, it is now managed by Keolis. I'm not sure this parking lot was ever managed by Republic. | ||
| 7 | 2025-03-30 14:04 | commented | gdt ♦641 | I am having trouble understanding you. The note is in a parking lot which looks like it is for CVS/Crosby's/Dunkin, which is in Hamilton, and you say "MBTA" lot which I interpret as the one south of the CVS building, and SE of the Hamilton/Wenham station icon, which is in Wenham. I am guessing you are local. Are these two parking lots operated as one thing? Do you have to pay to park to shop at Crosby's? Can you park there and take the train? With notes, what is helpful is to be as specific about factual observations as possible so that someone else can edit the map based on those observations, as a substitute for personal observation. | ||
| 8 | 2025-03-30 14:10 | commented | gdt ♦641 | It looks to me like not only operator might be wrong at Crosby's but also that one has to pay. I would expect it to be signed "parking for shops only; all others towed". But that's me guessing. A statement like "I went there today and I saw signs that said X" would be really helpful. | ||
| 9 | 2025-03-30 15:43 | commented | AntiCompositeNumber ♦329 | It is unlikely that I'll be able to survey this anytime soon. That is why I opened the note. I noticed this while cleaning up MBTA Commuter Rail parking lots, but wasn't able to resolve the question using available street-level imagery. | ||
| 10 | 2025-03-30 19:09 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Thanks. Now I think we understand each other. As a sort of local (I have driven through Hamilton once in the last year), I've created a new note that explains what needs to be checked, hoping that someone might notice and post what the signs say. I'm going to close this one (and left a backpointer). See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4689351 | ||
| 4689351 Category: Spam | 1 | 2025-03-30 19:08 | opened | gdt ♦641 | This lot is tagged as operated by Republic Parking and that it has a fee, suggesting that it's part of the MBTA. From imagery and geometry, one would expect that it's parking for CVS/Crosby's/Dunkin', it's not operated by any parking company, that you can park while shopping without a fee, and that you can't park for the train. Or perhaps that it has sections which differ. An on-the-ground survey is needed to read signs and understand the rules, and either fix tagging or close this note as unfounded (if you really have to pay Republic to shop at Crosby's!). This note is not about the Keolis-operated lot to the south, that is clearly associated with the train station. See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4048415 which has discussion leading up to a more concise expression of what needs fixing. | |
| 1849629 | 1 | 2019-07-19 18:32 | opened | Swankebe | fitz hue lane park | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 23:01 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Town website (today) says Solomon Jacobs park and does not list a Fitz Hugh Lane park. I can't find anything indicating a name change. https://gloucester-ma.gov/450/Parks-and-Recreational-Facilities Feel free to reopen with specific information about why you believe that the name of this park has been changed, like a URL to a city website or that there is a sign naming the park (as opposed to the statue/monument in the SW). | ||
| 3522233 | 1 | 2023-01-17 17:27 | opened | Cake Ann Events Coordinator | Cake Ann is located in the same building as Gloucester House Restaurant and Blue Collar Lobster Co. It is a bakery/cafe. 63 Rogers Street Gloucester, MA 01930 Moved locations over a year ago and would like it updated on this service so instagram maps will update | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 22:55 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Present on default render and looks ok to me. | ||
| 3522237 | 1 | 2023-01-17 17:30 | opened | Cake Ann Events Coordinator | Remove Cake Ann as being located at this address. It has been a year and a half since they were located in this plaza. New location is at 63 Rogers Street Gloucester, MA 01930 | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 22:54 | closed | gdt ♦641 | looks like this has happened. | ||
| 1901167 | 1 | 2019-08-26 12:38 | opened | muskratmike ♦3 | Vehicle road ends here prop owners put up gate for bikes/peds only after this | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 22:53 | closed | gdt ♦641 | looks mapped as you describe | ||
| 4688041 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-03-29 22:46 | opened | gdt ♦641 | MassGIS says there is a CR. Obtain status from OpenSpace data layer and add a landuse=conservation polygon, boundary=protected_area. If there is a public easement, or similar arrangement, then also leisure=nature_reserve. | |
| 2500829 | 1 | 2021-01-17 00:27 | opened | MarmadukeChuffnell | Not a trail (private property) | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 22:44 | closed | gdt ♦641 | MassGIS says it's a CR, which often/usually in situations like this have easements for the public. At least the last recorded CR I read did. But, being owned by other than the government doesn't argue that there isn't a trail. It's been edited over multiple years with specific access tags, which makes it look like local editors have been thinking about it. Feel free to reopen and explain how the data on the map is incorrect, and if so please explain what the CR terms are in terms of public easements. | ||
| 4214901 | 1 | 2024-04-25 17:33 | opened | Mateusz Konieczny ♦36,443 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/432574037#map=17/42.67952/-70.77798&layers=N secondary road as parking access road? Is it really justified here? I think that much lower road class would fit here (no matter official classification) | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 22:33 | closed | gdt ♦641 | I have changed it to tertiary. I am guessing you've never been there (which is fine as you merely raised a question). I'm more or less local and have driven on this road multiple times. While I agree it's not validly secondary, it is very important locally, and while you said "parking access", the parking lot is enormous and has probably thousands of cars in summer. You just can't see it on imagery because the parking is not paved and imagery is captured just before April 1 usually (leaf off), when it's too cold for the beach. The road is also used for the Crane Estate, also a major destination. So in summary, you are right about secondary being excessive but it's more important than it might look. Happy to discuss in depth with anyone who's on the ground and especially who considers this town part of their "I take care of this" area. | ||
| 4275055 | 1 | 2024-06-01 20:00 | opened | Mabap ♦380 | Unable to answer "How does this path cross the barrier here?" – https://osm.org/node/2620512798 via StreetComplete 57.4: No barrier at all just stairs | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 22:26 | closed | gdt ♦641 | fixed | ||
| 4687893 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-03-29 19:22 | opened | gdt ♦641 | South end of Garner road geometry as mapped seems not to match the on-ground road. Needs high-accuracy field check. Original map data likely from MassGIS. | |
| 2 | 2025-04-09 06:51 | closed | jhaluska80 ♦2,614 | It was off a bit. Fortunately the lidar aerials shows it clearly. It should be good now. | ||
| 2983959 | 1 | 2021-12-26 16:20 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Surely this needs splitting from road to driveway of older house, and new driveways. L3 can't quite answer this because there is a complicated system of easements over contorted lots. | |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 18:27 | closed | gdt ♦641 | I guessed from L3, which seems like an improvement for now. | ||
| 100462 | 1 | 2014-01-12 19:39 | opened | gdt ♦641 | park geomery cleanup needed, and non-park usage (sewage?) | |
| 2 | 2025-03-24 12:56 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | Anything left to do here? | ||
| 3 | 2025-03-24 13:03 | closed | gdt ♦641 | looks ok enough now | ||
| 4640020 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-24 13:24 | opened | gdt ♦641 | There are 16 units, and each should have an addr tag. It looks like 14 in main biulding and thus 2 in SW, per MassGIS 2023 imagery. MassGIS Address Points are all overlaid and thus not helpful. Needs field check. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-25 01:05 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Field checked and unit-specific points added! | ||
| 4640845 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-25 00:57 | opened | gdt ♦641 | IImagery shows some kind of equipment, and it seems unusual. Needs an on-the-ground survey. | |
| 2426798 | 1 | 2020-11-15 22:45 | opened | gdt ♦641 | From parcels data, looks like possible access to Farina Field. leisure=park with no access does not make sense. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 13:37 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Still looks like possible access, and public records indicate Farina was considered for a dog park but not chosen. There are two not-really parcels connecting to the road, which L3 Parcels treat as entirely subject to road easements. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-25 00:50 | closed | gdt ♦641 | On the ground, this does not look like access. | ||
| 4048634 | 1 | 2024-01-01 06:34 | opened | 0189004217 | This is definitely a Walgreens, not a Rite Aid. I’ve driven by many times. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 14:55 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Since your note, someone has removed the name and pharmacy tagging saying it is closed. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152885791 Please comment whether or not you have seen the walgreen's operating after June 2024. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 15:02 | commented | gdt ♦641 | If on March 24, 2025, there's been no response and the Walgreen's is still shown on the map, I'd say this note can just be closed. | ||
| 4 | 2025-05-01 15:59 | closed | Gescriey ♦18 | Yes, Walgreens is operating here as of April 2025 | ||
| 4048635 | 1 | 2024-01-01 06:38 | opened | 0189004217 | This restaurant name has changed. It is now MeiWei Kitchen. I’ve driven by often and new pics are on google maps street view | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 14:50 | commented | gdt ♦641 | We can't use google imagery due to terms of service. Please don't enter notes with google data. Of course, your own observations are entirely appropriate. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 14:53 | closed | gdt ♦641 | restaurant renamed based on observation of name change by user who accepted CT, without looking at google anything | ||
| 3128234 | 1 | 2022-04-10 22:30 | opened | gdt ♦641 | survey - 2021 imagery too old | |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 21:49 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | 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 | 2025-02-24 14:46 | closed | gdt ♦641 | From 2021 imagery, it looked like still-in-progress construction, but this part of the area now looks stable. I added some grass and that seems good enough. | ||
| 3128242 | 1 | 2022-04-10 22:51 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Field check highway types: service vs unclassified. Looks unclassified from imagery. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 14:45 | closed | gdt ♦641 | I looked at the imagery and the geometry, and MassDOT roads. With that plus memory of survey, I decided to call the entire thing service, as while there appear to be easements, the physical layout is now decorrelated with parcels. Plus, removing broadway tagging on a small section was enough to make the length of it to canal street all service. | ||
| 3128235 | 1 | 2022-04-10 22:30 | opened | gdt ♦641 | MassGIS 2021 imagery says there is a new building here. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 14:37 | closed | gdt ♦641 | And there is on the map | ||
| 3128078 | 1 | 2022-04-10 19:20 | opened | --- | This area needs a survey/update. From the city website, I am guessing it has had more done that shows on the 2021 MassGIS imagery | |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 21:49 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | 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 | 2025-02-24 14:37 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Things seem settled down in the 2023 imagery vs 2021, so seems not worthy of a note any more. (I was probably the above anonymous, not realizing I wasn't logged in.) | ||
| 3128240 | 1 | 2022-04-10 22:47 | opened | gdt ♦641 | survey bridge for sidewalks | |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 21:48 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | sidewalk crosses bridge based on latest imagery. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 14:30 | closed | gdt ♦641 | It does and then it's not clear if it connects. I added what I can see, and opened a new note that is much clearer and will close this. | ||
| 3372578 | 1 | 2022-09-24 20:59 | opened | gdt ♦641 | toilets | |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 21:45 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | added as a node. Please confirm if this addresses your note and resolves it. All information has been added from note. If all note information is addressed, please kindly close the note and mark it as resolved. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 14:19 | closed | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 3768341 | 1 | 2023-07-06 18:12 | opened | gdt ♦641 | entrance path from school parking | |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 21:44 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Can you elaborate? Where does the path go? There is no path from lot towards NW on any imagery where this note is located. More information is needed or a potential survey is needed to elaborate on what this note means. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 14:17 | commented | gdt ♦641 | I drove to the school parking lot, parked, and then walked into the garden on a path, that was obvious from being on the ground. I agree that you can't see this on the RI Spring 2024 imagery and that it needs a site visit by a local mapper. | ||
| 2624615 | 1 | 2021-04-16 00:36 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Ham radio sources say there is a monument "!BCG" about the 1921 Transatlantic Tests near this intersection. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 21:41 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | added from street imagery, and confirmed from: https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Transatlantic/1921_TransAtlantic_Tests.pdf Please concur if this resolves this note to your satisfaction. If it does, please kindly close the note to mark it as resolved. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 14:10 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Great, thanks! | ||
| 2426809 | 1 | 2020-11-15 23:33 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Brookside Apartments Units aproximately 1-16 per MassGIS, but not clear where and needs a field check. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 12:29 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | These look like townhouses on streetside | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 13:27 | closed | gdt ♦641 | They are indeed. But they don't have individual address points yet, and MassGIS Address Points layer is unhelpful as there are 17 points, 1 without unit and 1 each 1-16, at the same coordinates. After some detailing, I created a new note that says just that more clearly. | ||
| 3937231 | 1 | 2023-10-12 18:16 | opened | gdt ♦641 | gone, landuse=construction | |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 12:00 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | I noticed that you didn't tag this as being a construction site. Before I tag it as being under construction, just wanted to check to see if construction has been completed. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-24 13:18 | closed | gdt ♦641 | I was by within the last month or so and didn't have any impression of completion. I just removed evertyhing that feels like it was removed and added constrution/fence. This is a pretty total site redo, dense housing coming. | ||
| 4281391 | 1 | 2024-06-06 17:10 | opened | engineerAl ♦138 | There's another trail here, blue blazes, from the red trail NE to Tuttle Lane. See town map at https://www.stowconservationtrust.org/red-acre-map | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 17:23 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Looks like the trail you refer to is now on the map. Do you concur, or is there a third way? | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 19:30 | commented | engineerAl ♦138 | I agree. | ||
| 4 | 2025-02-21 19:36 | closed | gdt ♦641 | If we both think all trails that exist are mapped, then it's time to close this note. | ||
| 249720 | 1 | 2014-09-30 23:54 | opened | --- | This conservation area doesn't line up with L3 Parcels. Needs looking up at Maynard Town Hall. | |
| 2 | 2014-10-11 22:58 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Note was entered by gdt (not trying to be anonymous). | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 17:22 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Jones-Summer Lot matches current MassGIS open space. Still needs a visit to Town Hall. | ||
| 3374608 | 1 | 2022-09-26 12:39 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Perhaps "Queens Screw and Manufacturing" is here, maybe unit A. Needs field check. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 17:16 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Web says no, and I haven't gone by yet, so this note no longer seems useful. | ||
| 2918106 | 1 | 2021-11-01 00:31 | opened | gdt ♦641 | I saw someone refer to this in a ways that suggests place=locality name="Estella's Corner", but I'm not sure there is enough usage/knowledge to warrant that. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 17:14 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Apparently nobody else heard this, so I'm going to say this note has run its course. | ||
| 2984003 | 1 | 2021-12-26 16:37 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Sort of parking, sort of unused, not really park. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 17:13 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Added a parking node and calling that good enough, given the complicated reality. | ||
| 1096444 | 1 | 2017-08-08 14:32 | opened | RichRico | Can someone please confirm whether "Vintage bar and grille" is located here? Thank you | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 16:59 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Your note was hard to interpret. Questions don't really make sense in notes. Perhaps you mean "I think junior's is gone and this is now X". After a little looking at restaurant web pages, missing and functional, the map currently shows it as Vintage, as of a few minutes ago. | ||
| 3413463 | 1 | 2022-10-26 01:33 | opened | Mr_Beeblebrox ♦31 | Worcester Union Station temporarily resited to allow for construction of a second island platform, temporary platform in this approximate location, proper survey required https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9udlKqLY-4 | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 04:13 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Has the relocation concluded and/or is construction complete? Is it still located in this temporary location? | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 16:49 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Announcement of new platform opening last summer: https://www.mbta.com/news/2024-07-09/mbta-celebrates-opening-worcester-union-station-center-platform Plus, the new platform appears on the map. As a more or less local, I think this is enough to say that fall of 2022 data has aged out. Mr_beeblebrox: feel very free to hit re-activate if you disagree. | ||
| 3359557 | 1 | 2022-09-14 14:22 | opened | gdt ♦641 | cell tower, very ish | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 16:31 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | What do you mean by very "ish"? | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 16:36 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Sorry, will try to be more careful with wording. I must have meant that while I was riding as a passenger on MA 31 that I saw a cell tower that I believed to be not mapped, that the map note is at my best guess as to its location, but that the spatial accuracy of the note is low. | ||
| 4 | 2025-02-21 16:38 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Just found it in imagery and uploaded. | ||
| 3566570 | 1 | 2023-02-20 07:07 | opened | bigmanbigman | There's a bike shop here! Spotted that it's missing on the cycle map. Fritz's Bicycle Shop 328 W Boylston St, Worcester, MA 01606 | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 12:34 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Added. @bigmanbigman: please check location as I guessed. | ||
| 2996752 | 1 | 2022-01-04 14:49 | opened | gdt ♦641 | field check - looks like boathouse removed/rebuilt from aerials and history | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 12:29 | closed | gdt ♦641 | map has been updated to match 2023 aerials. I just added paths and fixed the parking lot (detangling parking area and ways). | ||
| 2996710 | 1 | 2022-01-04 14:31 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Paths are mistagged. I saw no evidence of a separate sidewalk and something I'd call "path" The "Indian lake Pathway" seems more likely a route, not a physical path, but I am not local to Worcester. | |
| 2 | 2022-05-29 00:17 | commented | gdt ♦641 | sidewalk both sides, no sign of anything more | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 12:17 | closed | gdt ♦641 | It looks like someone has cleaned this up. | ||
| 1865209 | 1 | 2019-07-31 22:00 | opened | gdt ♦641 | art, giant heart in field | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 03:49 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | I have added it, but will leave it for you to inspect that it is complete and close the note. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 12:14 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Wow, very cool to map the outline as an area! | ||
| 2313237 | 1 | 2020-08-19 00:06 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Franklin Street Fare, a restaurant that looks like a food truck, is at 72, say news reports. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 04:19 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Through some research, it appears they may be out of business. A #surveyme may be need. Their website (at least it was): https://www.franklinstreetfare.com/ It instead appears to be a cheesesteak sandwich place named "Ziggy Bomb" https://www.ziggybombssubs.com/contact#:~:text=WORCESTER-,72%20Franklin%20St%0AWorcester%2C%20MA%2001608,-Phone%3A%20(508 Do you concur with naming it Ziggy Bomb instead and discarding "Franklin Street Fare" here? | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 12:07 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Sure, feel 100% free to do that. (I am in Worcester less often than I used to be these days.) | ||
| 4 | 2025-05-04 19:44 | commented | KevCool ♦1 | It's Ziggy Bomb Subs. I walk past it frequently. | ||
| 5 | 2025-08-29 07:58 | closed | dannmer ♦16,802 | Added | ||
| 2996753 | 1 | 2022-01-04 14:49 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Pathway geometry is highly likely to have changed. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 04:11 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | It appears to match Spring 2023 imagery. If you concur that no further action is required based on updated imagery, please feel free to close the note. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 12:06 | closed | gdt ♦641 | it seems like somebody edited here and it looks plausible. What happened is that Shore drive use to meet Holden Street north of Drummond, sort of near the north end of #89, and there was a major realignment. I think the road got adjusted on OSM but not the sidewalks. | ||
| 3296955 | 1 | 2022-08-03 09:59 | opened | gdt ♦641 | This area could use a field check. Reliant says they are still there and cautions about the ramp closure, so I think this parking area is likely intact. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 04:10 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Parking lot still intact and present in Spring 2023. I don't believe further action is needed. If you concur, please close the note or elaborate on what further action needs to be taken. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 12:03 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Thanks. Reliant's website makes it seem normal. It just looked like the entire area was pretty disturbed when I entered the note. | ||
| 3296954 | 1 | 2022-08-03 09:59 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Possibly I should not have nuked this parking lot, but previous data showed it to be part of the mall, and from driving by on 190, it really looks like the construction is taking everything down to bare earth. Eyewitness comments from someone who has accepted the CT would be helpful. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 04:09 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Parking lot is on 2023 imagery. readded deleted parking lots in rough pass. Feel free to tweak positions as you see fit. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 12:01 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Thanks. I think they really did remove and replace everything. What you've done on the map looks great and is consistent with my memory of driving by in the last few months. | ||
| 145923 | 1 | 2014-04-05 22:52 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Park geometry looks ok from massgis L3, but "Dodge Park Road" looks like it does not exist. Also, park needs gnis/massgis merging. | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 04:01 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | That road appears to have already been removed. If you concur that the note has been resolved, feel free to close the note. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 11:59 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Yes, looks ok now and wow that was a long time ago. | ||
| 1865203 | 1 | 2019-07-31 21:57 | opened | gdt ♦641 | pine ridge farm | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 03:57 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Added to the N-NE. Will allow to inspect and determine if this resolves the note, and ask you kindly to close the note if you concur. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 11:58 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Thanks, that addresses the note. | ||
| 1865208 | 1 | 2019-07-31 21:59 | opened | gdt ♦641 | paved, signed dead end | |
| 2 | 2025-02-21 03:47 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | updated to asphalt. Certainly not concrete. How would you like it to be tagged for a dead end? | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-21 11:57 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Thanks. As for dead end, I'm not sure, I was just noting what I saw as I was riding by. Reading the wiki with the usual 100 grams of salt, it seems noexit=yes is used when the end is close to something else that there's a valid armchair question if it should be connected, but that's no the case there. There are tags for signs, but I don't see dead end on the list. I guess there might or might not be a turning circle, but I didn't see anything, so that's not part of this. | ||
| 3597712 | 1 | 2023-03-14 16:25 | opened | Milk Row Studio | This sculpture may not be here any longer because it was likely part of a biennial sculpture exhibition. A new map of this year's exhibtion is being considered. Would it be appropriate to ask the "random person" who created this item to remove it? Or maybe relocate the item to the sculpture's current location? | |
| 2 | 2023-04-19 14:11 | commented | JessAk71 ♦1,609 | I would say relocating it to the current location would be the best option | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-20 14:28 | commented | gdt ♦641 | It looks like Milk Row Studio signed up just to post this note. That's great, as notes from users are a valid basis to edit the map, since they've agreed to the Contributor Terms. But I am guessing they are not comfortable editing, which is fine. So where exactly is the sculpture now? Or is it really gone? You could open a new note showing the location and drop a link in to this note. The aerial imagery isn't clear enough to see and the most recent MassGIS imagery is from April 2023. | ||
| 4 | 2025-06-22 18:01 | closed | Ba5eba11nut ♦5 | Around October 2024, the sculpture was part of the artists exhibit in the Worcester Airport lobby. I'm going to move it there with a note that it needs verification. | ||
| 3849899 | 1 | 2023-08-23 15:21 | opened | gdt ♦641 | this lot does not have a name | |
| 2 | 2025-02-03 03:57 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | Is there anything that needs to be done here? | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-20 14:23 | closed | gdt ♦641 | There was something to be done, but somebody did it :-) The parking lot was previously incorrectly tagged with name= with a description, and that has since been fixed. | ||
| 4631995 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-18 10:22 | opened | stardog21 | South Street is Currently CLOSED between this intersection (Wilson Rd.) and Jones Road. It will re-open in June of 2025 | |
| 2 | 2025-02-18 18:09 | commented | gdt ♦641 | It sounds like you should edit the map. Do you truly mean "CLOSED" as in people are not even allowed to drive to their houses, or "no through traffic", or something else? Can emergency vehicles use the road? Is the bridge functional? It's important to get these details in the map so mode-specific routing is correct. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-20 04:41 | closed | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Due to the slow update cycle of the OSM maps, we generally don't map temporary road closures of less than 1 year. | ||
| 4 | 2025-02-20 13:24 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 5 | 2025-02-20 13:36 | commented | gdt ♦641 | As a meta comment, I try to not close other people's notes unless the issue reported has been fixed. (Often, someone updates the map, not noticing the note.) The reporter is local and a new mapper. 15 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Well, actually for a 4-month closure I would have. But I don't think we now have a "slow update cycle of OSM maps", and I don't think this idea has survived. Editing the map changes the database immediately, and then it's up to people/programs that use the data to decide how fresh they want their data to be. Getting data once a year seems really unusual and IMHO not a good plan. There are minutely diffs for those who want to keep really updated. Looking at uses of OSM data, I find that the routing engines on osm.org get updates within a few days (or faster). I use OsmAnd and the normal path is that updated maps are available every 30 days. There's a secondary path "live updates", and there you can ask for an update. That's been getting speedier; it used to be a few hours and now I tend to get data that is only 15 minutes old. This runs daily in the background, not 100% reliably, so if I'm not paying attention I am using data from within the last few days. I also use Organic Maps. Looking at f-droid metadata, I have 2024.01.26-9-FDROID which has OSM data as of January 21. So I am almost a month behind. i expect an update with in the next month. I am not up on other routing programs. But I'd say that anything that has data freshness much less timely than monthly is below normal practices. Then, there's the question of who to optimize for. In my view it's much more important to know a road is closed and not use it than to know it's open and use it. And, given that I think any program doing routing should be having data updates at least monthly, 4 months is well long enough to enter. I would refrain from making a 1-week change, and wouldn't even think about a 1-day change. | ||
| 6 | 2025-02-20 14:15 | commented | gdt ♦641 | Big-picture discussion on talk-us-massachusetts: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/2025-February/000878.html | ||
| 7 | 2025-03-01 00:24 | commented | dannmer ♦16,802 | Given the number of houses south of the note location, I'm a bit skeptical that the road is truly closed since people need to get to their houses. Perhaps the closure begins further south. | ||
| 8 | 2025-06-03 09:43 | closed | dannmer ♦16,802 | It's June, so presumably the construction is either over or wrapping up shortly. No one ever tagged the road as being under construction so there's nothing to do here. Resolving note | ||
| 4631994 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-18 10:20 | opened | stardog21 | South Street is Currently CLOSED between this intersection (Jones Rd.) and Wilson Road. It will re-open in June of 2025 | |
| 2 | 2025-02-20 04:41 | closed | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Due to the slow update cycle of the OSM maps, we generally don't map temporary road closures of less than 1 year. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-20 13:37 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 4 | 2025-02-20 13:37 | commented | gdt ♦641 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4631995 | ||
| 5 | 2025-06-03 09:42 | closed | dannmer ♦16,802 | It's June, so presumably the construction is either over or wrapping up shortly. No one ever tagged the road as being under construction so there's nothing to do here. Resolving note | ||
| 4411131 Category: unknown | 1 | 2024-08-30 19:07 | opened | --- | Park & Playfields south of the driveway at Berlin Memorial School is named "South Commons" | |
| 2 | 2025-02-18 10:29 | closed | stardog21 | Correction: South Commons is the entire area that is bordered by South St. to the West, Central St. to the North, Pleasant St. to the East and Booth Conservation's Southern boarder. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-18 18:10 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | |||
| 4 | 2025-02-18 18:14 | commented | gdt ♦641 | I was about to comment and realized you were probably the original reporter. Sounds like you are saying that South Commons is some kind of place name. I do see a subdivision "Southwood Commons". But I see "South Commons" as a trail map at the Town's website. Are you saying that these place names are now correctly reflected on the map? | ||
| 4631961 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-18 10:16 | opened | stardog21 | "Berlin Landing Area" has been decommissioned and literally built over. (See residence at 102 Crosby Road) | |
| 2 | 2025-02-18 17:45 | commented | gdt ♦641 | It's still on the sectional chart. Have asked a pilot friend and will very likely remove when I hear back. Do you know when it was decommissioned? There's a surprisingly small web footprint; would expect a news story. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-18 18:07 | closed | gdt ♦641 | MassGIS imagery from ~2000 shows grass consistent with a landing area, and modern imagery does not. A friend who is a very experienced local pilot (flies out of 6B6) has never heard of it. I have removed it from the map. | ||
| 3707134 | 1 | 2023-05-26 18:14 | opened | gdt ♦641 | cloaed? | |
| 2 | 2025-02-18 14:24 | closed | gdt ♦641 | Map updated to remove VPE tagging; their last day of business was 2020-09-30, per their web site and corroborated by a newspaper article. Plus, it had looked closed when I drove by and made a note. | ||
| 4632273 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-18 13:35 | opened | gdt ♦641 | At some point, the two lanes on the exit merge with the existing 2 on the 290W from E of 495 and I'm 95% sure end up as 3. The spring 2023 imagery shows this mid construction. I have changed the exit to 1 where I think the merge might be. This needs an on-the-ground survey. | |
| 4009749 | 1 | 2023-11-30 17:11 | opened | gdt ♦641 | begin extra r lane exit only | |
| 2 | 2025-02-18 10:33 | closed | stardog21 | Construction has completed of the new exit onto Rt.290 West with additional dedicated exit lane. | ||
| 3 | 2025-02-18 13:35 | reopened | gdt ♦641 | I don't understand why you closed this note. Yes, construction is completed, but the note is about the map data not matching how the road is. This used to be just 3 lanes. Now its 4 for quite a ways, and the 4th is exit only (as I'm sure you noticed being local, but there is an unfortunate culture of overly aggressive armchair note closing). I am not particularly skilled at edting lane information, but reviewing the map data it's clear that this update has not been made. | ||
| 4632271 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-18 13:35 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Lanes tagging needs improving. The 2023 imagery is out of date. The reality is that there are 4 lanes at this point. The leftmost 2 are straight only. Rightmost is exit only to the R lane of the ramp. 2nd-from-right can continue or exit to be the L lane of the ramp. | |
| 4632272 Category: unknown | 1 | 2025-02-18 13:35 | opened | gdt ♦641 | A fourth exit-only lane begins here, added in probably late 2022. The map data indicates only 3. | |
| 3861918 | 1 | 2023-08-30 13:18 | opened | gdt ♦641 | Maybe there really is no platform access from this lot, but that seems surprising and an on-ground check would be useful. | |
| 2 | 2024-12-27 03:15 | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦51,130 | Doesn't look like there is right here, but there is access just to the east. | ||
| 3 | 2024-12-27 15:05 | closed | gdt ♦641 | I'm going to call this checked enough. I have been by since my note, and did look around, and would have noticed an access. I'm assuming the access you mean is at the drop-off, as shown on the map already. Yell if you mean some other access that is not mapped! |