As WP:OI says,
Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.
The published information which is the basis for the annotation (i.e. the three letters/arrows) is explained on the image description page for the uncropped map  and also in a footnote to the map's caption  i.e.
Macmillan gives the steps in setting a blast, the location and circumstances of the accident, and the location of Gage's lodgings and Harlow's home and surgery..
Thoughts on this? As with the image links, I've put the map back so we (and others) can see what we're talking about.   

A9 Proving a negative
This regards a recent edit  to the passage 
Macmillan's comprehensive survey of accounts of Gage (scientific and popular) found that they almost always distort and exaggerate his behavioral changes...
which removed the word comprehensive.

This is a delicate point and I want to come up with something everyone can live with. I think there are two questions here.

First, Was Macmillan's analysis indeed comprehensive? No one who's been participating have any doubt on that, but just in case, open the collapse list.

"first rate example of carefully done historical work" (Psychological Reports, 2001)
"obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered (Cortex, 2004)
"fastidious archaeological removal of the layers of legend" (Lancet, 2001)
"Even some of the most prestigious academic researchers have disseminated erroneous information..." (Neurosurgery Quarterly, 2002)
"The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary." (Science, 2000)
"Macmillan scoured all the sources and commentaries on the case and as far as material regarding Gage is concerned this must be a definitive work.  (History of the Human Sciences, 2007)
"Macmillan has shown that the record of how Phineas Gage’s character changed after the accident must be considered with caution..." (New England Journal of Medicine", 2004)

Second, Do we need to say the analysis was comprehensive? IMO I think we do, because it the analysis assserts a negative, which requires extraordinary research; just saying Macmillan found no mention omits that such extraordinary research was in fact done. (Two examples from the collapse box: "Macmillan has obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered"; "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary.")Without such a clear statement, we get edit summaries such as this one: .

Actually, there's a third question: Do we need to include a quotation (such as the "further research is not necessary"  above) supporting the comprehensiveness? I don't think the reader needs that. I had put it in a footnote to the article recently only because another editor had questioned the comprehensiveness  in other words, the quotation was there for editors, not readers, and this discussion can take its place.

So what I suggest is that the article say Macmillan's comprehensive analysis of accounts of Gage...'', where [97][98][99] cite to a few of the sources supporting the comprehensiveness, but without quoting them. What do you think?