[OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Peter Miller]

Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:

1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously (such as
the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built? I think
I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways agency for
now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to render in
the mean time).

2) I have a more difficult job with the new Haughley Bends upgrade on the
A14. A new section of A14 is being opened in the summer 08 and then the old
carriageways will be closed for 6 months and will then re-emerge as a
tertiary road (the west carriageway) and a bridleway (the east carriageway)
for most of the old section in Dec08, although a couple of short bits will
be grubbed up entirely and some new linking bits will be created. Is there
any way of coding such a thing? I feel it may be better to create a
relationship around all of the old stuff and say that it is going to go on
the switchover date, and then separately model the new network for the
replacement. Currently one has to add dates to every single little section
of road and as the opening date slips one should really change all the dates
which would be bonkers. In reality when a scheme opens in parts one might
have a series of versions of the model to be used in turn.

I realise that I am pushing the model beyond its initial intentions but we
are going to need to have robust ways of dealing with change.



Regards,





Peter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert (Jamie) Munro [mailto:rjmunro at arjam.net]
> Sent: 28 March 2008 12:29
> To: Peter Miller; Talk Openstreetmap
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> 
> -----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-----