landuse=conservation is not deprecated in massachusetts. Please do not remove it.

Also, natural=wood is wrong on a landuse/boundary polygon. The area that is wooded is not the same as the boundary.

(I will fix; I am the local mapper.)

The path from Samuel Prescott is signed No Trespassing. Would be great to add access tags on the connecting path to Donoma, and also verify if it still exists.

You are correct that it has cheese and deli also, but by floor space prominence arguably mostly wine and some beer is the primary content. There is also a good selection of chocolate and things like hot sauce, bread, but those IMHO do not merit tagging.

I merely added hours, but if you want to adjust tagging to represent it as a single business that is simultaneously a wine/beer store, a cheese store, and a place to buy prepared foods to eat at home and sandwiches, feel free.

As for 70s, that's before my time, but this store was around in the mid 90s when I first became aware of it.

This showed that the building was entirely a business, and the assessor's data and the feel from driving by say residential. So I separated the residence and the business tags into two objects. Please feel free to message me directly if you think I did that wrong. If there really is solely commercial use we probably ought to add a landuse=commercial polygon.

Also I should have said that I'm adding historic=boundary stone for markers that do exist, and those I am putting at my observed coordinates.

I'm curious if you are local to Stow/Maynard. I would also like to know when you used the survey points data, if you transformed the points (in NAD83(2011) to some approximation of WGS84. They are really not equivalent, but much software wrongly assumes a null transform. I have been using ITF2014 as a proxy for the current WGS84. I have also been making RTK GNSS measurement of the boundary markers, although those have come out very close to the survey points data that I have deferred to the survey points.

I will be making an adjustment pass at some point to align Stow's points with the properly transformed towns survey dataset points, if I haven't already.

I tend to call Roasted Peppers cafe as I do not recall table service. any objection to retagging it as such?

Please don't make imagery edits that change things that have been done by locals recently. This is just plain wrong, and a brief look at the map would have made it obvious that the Randall Library is not a residence.

Hearing no response, and because I as a local think the landuse polygon makes no sense, I'm going to just delete it.

Note that the part of the conservation area leading to the road is NOT tagged boundary=protected_area as this is NOT TRUE from some of the land. However it is in use as conservation land (hence the landuse tag) and is part of a leisure=nature_reserve. Please discuss rather than breaking tagging, especially if you aren't local. (I have walked the land and examined the documents at the registry of deeds.)

The on-the-ground situation is that the boundary between these two conservation parcels is defined by the town line. The L3 Parcels dataset and the town line dataset do not quite line up. To reduce confusion by viewers that do not appreciate the subtlety of mapping in aworld where all data has errors, the boundary is shown as being conincident with how the town line is rendered. This is within a meter of the previous location.

This was originally highway=track, because it is physically suitable for vehicles and used that way at least for emergency access. I don't understand why you changed it to footway. I changed it back before remembering the history -- I had set it to track in 2009, and it remains the same sort of thing now as it was then (just checked on the ground Saturday).

This edit removes a way that represents a trail. The trail was added long ago based on strava, and no mapper has ever seen it. The land is now posted no trespassing, so 1) any use of what might exist is unlawful and 2) more importantly, mappers are prohibited from verifying if there is or isn't a trail. All in all, based on discussion with other active local mappers and landowner representatives I think this phantom maybe-trail shouldn't be on the map, speaking as the local osm steward of this area. Please feel free to message me if you are upset by this.

It looks like there is a residential landuse added in this that doesn't really follow house lots and overlaps SCT's Fieldstone conservation land. Did you mean to add that?

Please do not remove landuse=conservation in massachusetts. It is in local use, despite global opinions. Also please do not make changes like this in changesets with descriptions that are inaccurate. This has nothing to do with service roads. This kind of tag removal by non-locals borders on vandalism.

Please do not vandalize by deleting landuse=conservation, and please do not hide this in changesets about duplicate nodes.

Please do not delete landuse=conservation in massachusetts. While this is arguably deprecated globally, it is very much in use locally. And please do not bury it in changesets that purport to be about service roads.

This changeset was not ok - it added service roads that are duplicative and right next to existing tracks. I have fixed some of the resulting problems.

I removed access=public, because that's not a defined tag. Also, probably it's not ok to be there at night, so I just left off the access tag.

This is not a motorway. I'm changing it back to trunk. This is based on observation from driving on it. Please discuss on talk-us-massachusetts@ if you disagree.