[talk-au] Mapping non-existent streets?

[Little Maps]

Hi all, following on from this query... The aus tagging guidelines page has
a section entitled, "How do I map a road that ISN'T there" which includes
this statement... "If there is a mapped road that would cross a fence, you
could mark in the fence, but this may not be entirely obvious on the map
what it is, you can also mark a node in the approx vicinity as restriction
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:restriction>=only_straight_on
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:restriction%3Donly_straight_on&action=edit&redlink=1>,
this shows up as a big blue arrow in JOSM and we are planning to make a
layer on the AU maps able to display this as well". Can anyone tell me what
"AU maps" refers to and if the phrase "we are planning to make a layer on
the AU maps able to display this as well" is still relevant? Thanks again,
Ian

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 1:11 PM <osm.talk-au at thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:

> There already is a clear policy that covers this:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
>
>
>
> *From:* Adrian Hobbs <adrian.hobbs at grapevine.com.au>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 1 May 2021 11:27
> *To:* Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Mapping non-existent streets?
>
>
>
> I am but only an occasional editor of OSM, but it seems to me that issues
> like this need to be addressed in some agreed and co-ordinated process,
> rather than ad-hoc. With rising water levels and global warming this is
> going to become a major issue. Geographical features are disappearing
> (islands, glaciers) or drastically altered (coastlines, rivers, lakes).
> Along with this are human infrastructure losses.
>
> Discussions like this re a single street and a few houses will be occuring
> in thousands of localities around the world. A standard approach needs to
> be sorted.
>
> As an aside, what is done now in places that regularly lose chunks of
> coastline e.g. bits of California, western UK, etc. Or drastically altered
> after earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, major landslides, etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Adrian Hobbs
>
> Get BlueMail for Android <http://www.bluemail.me/r?b=16696>
>
> On 1 May 2021, at 10:49, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with cleary, to map per what's on the ground.
>
>
>
> The houses can still be mapped with addr:street=Esplanade even without the
> street.
>
>
>
> razed:highway=residential or removed:highway=residential I have no strong
> view on for this situation.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 09:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 09:37, cleary <osm at 97k.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'd say that we map what we can confirm "on the ground". The inclusion of
> non-existent features in OSM is of no help to anyone.  In rural areas,
> there are whole villages in which plans were approved and gazetted but
> never constructed or, having once existed, have disappeared as the
> population disappeared - google maps occasionally includes some of these
> streets but we shouldn't.
>
>
>
> So don't do anything about it - just mark the addresses as The Esplanade &
> leave it at that?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210501/60658737/attachment-0001.htm>