[Tagging] proposed routes, state-tag

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Sun Dec 4 04:39:55 GMT 2011

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now looking at routes the preferred tagging suggested in the wiki is different:
> it is suggested to tag all routes the same way, regardless if they are
> signposted, existing or simply proposed, and then differentiate just
> by an additional key ( state ).
> This tag is somehow established:
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/state#values

That's because it's supported by OpenCycleMap, which tends to trump
any petty discussions on mailing lists like this...

> But I'd like to propose to adopt the scheme to that of highways and
> change the tagging to:
> route=proposed
> proposed=bicycle (for instance).
> What do you think?

Presumably you mean proposed=cycleway.

A few points:
- there's a difference between a proposed route and a proposed
cycleway. Around here, a proposed route frequently makes use of some
existing cycleways, and some to be constructed.
- I think the highway=x, x=y mechanism is inferior to highway=y,
state=x. So I'd rather be inconsistent and use the superior mechanism.
- It would be nice if there was a way to indicate that a route as a
whole is "under construction", but parts of it are actually open and
built. (This situation can remain for years, see
Currently the only way to do that is to break the route relation into
pieces and merge them later.
- I think in general the notion of "route=proposed" makes a lot less
sense than "highway=proposed". You could argue that a route "exists"
as soon as it is proposed. Whereas the point of the "highway=proposed"
tag is that the highway *doesn't* exist, and even at
"highway=construction", it's just dirt, not a road.


More information about the Tagging mailing list