[Tagging] Paper streets?

[Andrew S. J. Sawyer]

Can we just call/tag "paper streets" as such? "highway=paper_street" any
incarnation of tagging paper streets in a way that indicates that they have
been approved as streets but have not been built or have been disused (in
the physical sense).

additionally think they should be tagged from a legal/right-of-way framework
not a physical frame work since the street/right-of-way exists in a
legal declaration/agreement. This framework is important for mapping because
paper streets can create headaches for people who wish to build on their own
property and find out they can't because there is an ancient street that
exists only on paper. Also, many paper streets allow for public and/or
private "rights-of-way" over the given area so it is helpful for passage
purposes so people can follow an appropriate route.

Rendering paper streets will be up to the renders since there isn't a
physical path in many cases to the "paper street." I am a firm believer that
physical objects should be in one category for mapping and legal/conceptual
objects be placed in another category. Both have their importance, but
people should learn to differentiate them and not have tags that cross these
categories. OSM should (and I think does a good job at this) of having
different tags according to the respective categories.

Andrew

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 20:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2010/10/19 Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>:
>
> >>> Some of these qualify for highway=proposed. But if there are no
> >>> current plans to build them, would it be a good idea to map them as
> >>> (for example) highway=paper name=*?
> >>
> >> usually they are mapped
> >>
> >> highway=proposed
> >> proposed=primary/motorway/etc,
> >
> > Did you read my second paragraph?
>
>
> sorry, overlooked that. If there are no "current" plans to build them,
> what are the plans about? If they are planned to be build sometime,
> they would qualify for proposed, if they are not intented to be build,
> don't map them (at least not in OSM).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20101019/8cf96b1b/attachment-0007.html>