My first came at 40+3, and second at 42+1, so I did a lot of agonizing over this too. The midwives where I was usually used 42 weeks as their recommendation as well, but weren't firm on it.
One thing to remember is that all cutoffs are arbitrary, and part of the reason it's "42 weeks" is that the statistics are only taken weekly. So when a study sees an increase in bad outcomes "after 42 weeks", babies born at 42+0 and 42+6 are lumped into the same category, while babies at 41+6 and 42+0 are in different categories.
Everything I read suggested that there is a small increase in bad outcomes as the pregnancy goes later. Very small on an individual scale, large enough in a statistical sense for doctors/midwives to pay attention. However, some of those negative outcomes are not caused by being late, they're preexisting (and may be causing the delay in labor).
I decided the risks were small enough that I was comfortable playing it by ear (I did get the recommended NSTs and BPPs and passed with flying colors). By the time I hit 42 weeks, I had lots of prelabor, and she was born a day later.
Interestingly, despite the fact that the pregnancy was dated by early ultrasound (11 weeks), my baby came out looking just like a 40 weeker, according to the midwife. Still had vernix, placenta was beautiful with no calcification, no meconium, no wrinkled skin or long nails, etc... She was nearly 10 lbs, though.
If it were me, I'd go on intuition, symptoms, any test results, etc... rather than an arbitrary cutoff. And I suspect I'd have worried a bit more if I'd started getting close to 43 weeks.