Thank you for correcting that, as I was trying to go off of the map that was out there, and somehow erred when doing so.

Excellent! I just combined a few now, so hopefully that will clean things up a bit. Thanks for the help!

You make an excellent point about the land use. I only tagged it so that we have a rough understanding of the area, especially as a tiny point would be incredibly tempting to expand.

In a separate message, someone mentioned that they wrote to SpaceX to see the final outline of this, so hopefully we will know more soon as to where this will be.

Thank you and good question. I had copied the Bing data from the Texas Starbase location, so that is inaccurate and I will move it now. As for the general outline, I used something that was derived from this tweet, although this sketch does not respect the actual property rights in the area: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/2054295243122717105

According to the Assessor's Office, this is all still owned by Exxon Mobile, however this also encompasses their planned launch pads. I could pare it back if you think that would be better, so let me know what you think, as the alternative would be to turn this into a place mark, wait until the data updates, and go from there.

Best,
Kevin

Is there a reason that we could not map the Boston Harbor Islands boundaries to the entire island, instead of using the arbitrary ones that the City uses? I am fine with keeping what you placed, however I know that in the Seaport they have updated the boundaries for land changes in the 1980s, yet that map still uses out-of-date boundaries for the islands. This is nothing too big, however I figured that I would ask because there is yet another line going across some of the islands, that does not correspond to the shore line, including on Long Island, which cuts through a cliff.

I wonder if there is an update going on here that broke something, because I am seeing the Seashore Trolley Museum show the tram route as simultaneously abandoned, yet operational. I just completed some heavy editing over there earlier today to add the trolley route, but my understanding is that the route relation supersedes the underlying rail route, only if the rail is not active. Thus, it should not be showing two statuses, at once.

Regarding this and subsequent edits, would it make more sense to re-add this, but then mark this as something else? The reason I ask is because now the Canalside Rail Trail is not marked as a former railroad, even though the bed still exists.

There is no way to easily import it, as this is just keeping the historical aspect for this. Because most of this is a trail already, I see no issue with it, although I also tend to be more inclusive with abandoned railway routes if their pathway is visible with cuttings and embankments, if that makes sense.

Hello,
In regards to this edit, you added two buildings which had since been demolished and , but which were showing up on the map at the time. This is not a major issue since there was nothing on those structures, however I just wanted to let you know in case you notice that these are removed. On a helpful note, I discovered "destroyed:building=yes" years ago, which helps with ensuring that buildings are not re-added if they have been demolished since aerials were updated. Happy editing!

Kevin

I am going to resolve this, as I do see what they were referring to, and even if the name is wrong, Cape Cod is technically an island now, as we were taught as children in school there.

Hello, I just wanted to note that I removed this feature because it has never been officially proposed by the MBTA, and seems to be floating around local transit groups as the most official proposal at the moment (that said, I also think this is a good idea). In the future, please utilize the existing rail routing for any proposals, as it makes editing features easier.

Hello! I added that as part of the relation so that it shows on OpenRailwayMap, as I assume that is what you are talking about. This allows for it to show there and not in OSM. If I added it accidentally to a road or something else (which is always possible), please let me know and I will promptly remove it!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181561584

No worries, and apologies for the late reply here. Do you want me to go back and remove them, where applicable?

What sections are you proposing removal on, as visible scars on the landscape, per se, are perfectly within the realm of mapping on the map since these corridors once hosted rail lines and have not been developed.

Is there a reason that this is signed U.S. 26, such as a local map or street sign, as that seems a bit odd to sign on this stretch.

Just a heads up, it might be easier to use LIDAR for some of the abandoned features, as there is a wye outside of Breton Woods that was in the wrong spot.

Hi there, I mapped this about a year ago and revisited it recently. I still need to go into this further, as I have yet to do on-the-ground research for this. That said, I have cut up some of the segments to reflect this, so I thought that I had done that with buildings. Let me work on this further in the coming days, and thanks for the heads up.

Thank you for pointing this out, as I meant to tag the entire path under the reservoir as historic, but only remembered to do a small part near the Windsor Dam before saving. I will go ahead and tackle this in the coming days, as I meant to do so before falling asleep the other day!

Check the next changeset for this, as I was able to map out most of the original routing for the route into North Andover, via LIDAR. The only hazy part is in downtown Andover, but thanks for starting this, as I was able to complete it for you!

Hello there,

I just wanted to note that you accidentally dragged Neponset Avenue to Morrissey Boulevard with this edit. Fortunately, it is easily fixable, as I have also done the same in the past, but I just wanted to give you a heads up in case you are alerted by my edit.

Happy editing!

Kevin