[Tagging] Paper streets?

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> If someone *wants* to map the roads which
> have been proposed but aren’t any more, I don’t see a problem with that.
> </no-sarcasm>
>
> I’m glad you’re not the dictator of what things people are “allowed” to map.

I never said people shouldn't be allowed to map paper streets.  They
should.  They just shouldn't use the highway tag for them.  (They
shouldn't use the highway tag for stop signs either, though that's at
least forgivable since it's a point rather than a way.)




On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/19 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Andrew S. J. Sawyer
>> It doesn't feel right to call something a highway=* if it isn't usable
>> for travel.  If it is usable for travel, then it should be tagged
>> highway=track/path/etc as appropriate.
>
>
> is this referring to highway=services or to highway=bus_stop? Or to
> highway=stop/give_way/mini_roundabout/traffic_lights? Or are you
> referring to highway=speed_camera or street_lamp? ;-)
>
> While I generally agree with you, it is since long not (more?) the
> case that highway only refers to ways suitable for travel.

It's definitely referring to highway=services.  As for the rest, I
believe they are all used as POIs, which makes them somewhat more
forgivable, and usually (?) used as a point on the highway itself,
which also makes them more forgivable.

When you're talking about ways, which connect to actual roads, and in
reality don't exist...  *sigh*  Serenity now!