[OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass

[Andy Robinson]

On 28/03/2008, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
>
>  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).

On the basis that we only put data into the project relating to
physical objects I dont think we should put any items in that "might"
get built. Once construction starts then you tag the object with
something appropriate to indicate its a feature under construction.
However I appreciate that once planning consent is approved we should
have the object represented if we know where it is to go. Something
like highway=trunk and proposed=true would be good enough for me.

>
>  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-----
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  talk mailing list
>  talk at openstreetmap.org
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
Andy Robinson