[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
http://railtrails.org.au/states/trails.php3?action=trail&trail=21)
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.

Steve



More information about the Tagging mailing list