[OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Miller wrote:
|
| This job does raise an important question about how to map and model
| proposed roads. We have used the tags ‘highway=trunk’ and ‘tunnel=yes’
| and name=’Mottram … bypass (proposed)’, ‘proposed=trunk’ and added a
| note. It would be better not to have to use the tunnel tag to get it to
| render properly (especially as part of the road is indeed in a proposed
| tunnel which we can’t represent!). Btw, the Glossop Spur didn’t render
| properly this week under mapnik and I think (hope) it was because I used
| ‘tunnel=true’ not ‘tunnel=yes’. I have changed the tags for the Glossop
| Spur so that they are now identical to that for the main bypass and
| should render properly next week.

The correct tagging is to put a start_date that is somewhere in the
future (i.e. the estimated date of completion of the project). I don't
think renderers support this yet - they just render it as a normal road.
They should render it as under construction (or not at all) if the date
is in the future, and normally otherwise. Similarly for end_date. Dates
should be in YYYY-MM-DD format as this is the most easily machine
readable. I think renderers should allow partial dates - so if you know
something will open in 2010, but not what month, you can just put
start_date=2010, or if you know it's February start_date=2010-02.

I also think renderers should ignore things after a space, so you can
put "start_date=2010-01-01 approximately" or "start_date=2010 proposed"
or other unforeseen uses.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH7OSOz+aYVHdncI0RAuWKAKD8Zfojnl07nhH78z72H4bs4pgRGQCfZLnl
s1g5bSrPwSpHRz899DtZc20=
=kaiQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----