Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: But what if hikers still refer to the spot? Like Let's go to the burnt alpine hut, and then go left. That is a pretty important landmark, even if there is no sign of the hut any more. Maybe we can tag it as place=locality. Clearly, that's a http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ruins ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a lifecycle tag of removed. But what if hikers still refer to the spot? Like Let's go to the burnt alpine hut, and then go left. That is a pretty important landmark, even if there is no sign of the hut any more. Maybe we can tag it as place=locality. perhaps the destroyed: prefix? I would assume it should be used mostly if there are still visible ruins but should be also ok as long as it is well known what it refers to. Otherwise locality seems better. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a lifecycle tag of removed. But what if hikers still refer to the spot? Like Let's go to the burnt alpine hut, and then go left. That is a pretty important landmark, even if there is no sign of the hut any more. Maybe we can tag it as place=locality. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On 30.01.2015 17:17, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: The goal was to describe an allready in use practice about the removed: prefix which I thought defered from the destroyed: prefix which was intended for features that once were, but were destroyed, while the removed: prefix is a more generic case where some mapper discover on the ground that a real life object in fact does not exists Looking at the taginfo pages for the removed:power key, which has been quoted as an example of the practice, I notice that only 8 users have last edited a feature with that tag. With removed:design, the number even goes down to 1! Combined with the very limited geographical spread, I strongly doubt that the removed: prefix is as commonly used as the page suggests. So imo the page has no business being in the Key namespace. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Hi, dieterdreist wrote thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also agreed and has changed the description. In fact, the creator of the above mentionned wiki page copy/pasted the page I originally created to document the removed: prefix here : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:removed The goal was to describe an allready in use practice about the removed: prefix which I thought defered from the destroyed: prefix which was intended for features that once were, but were destroyed, while the removed: prefix is a more generic case where some mapper discover on the ground that a real life object in fact does not exists (and that mapper does not know if that real life object once existed or not), and after removing it, is faced with another (harmchair) mapper re-adding again that feature. - -- sly, contact direct : sylvain /a\ letuffe o r g http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Sletuffe -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Lifecycle-concepts-REMOVED-tp5831677p5831969.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: If there used to be a castle and now there's a ruin, then we tag that as a ruin (with potential add-on info about its former castle status). If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a lifecycle tag of removed. generally I agree with you, but there might be edge cases. I looked this up in the wiki because someone on the italian ML asked what to do with a aerialway=cable_car, where the pylons and the cable have been removed, but the stations still exist, and the current tagging for the way was disused=yes and aerialway=cable_car. I answered that I'd remove the way, but in alternative he could retag it to removed:aerialway=cable_car and cancel the misleading disused attribute. This way there would remain trace of the former feature and the stations would be remain in context. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 08:43 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Yes, my opinion is that all highway=proposed should be removed. I think this is an absolutely awful idea. after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built sounds nice but always there will be somebody convinced that proposal is real. For example my city has multiple proposed roads - that are in official planes for decades (one since at least 1960s), with start of construction within 25 years since initial proposal. If the proposal was from between 1960 and 1969, within 25 years would have been no later than the end of 1994, possibly as early as 1985. So on those, I would be okay with removal unless construction suddenly becomes imminent, because we are long past that point. On newer proposals, maybe a grace period of 3 months to a year after the stated construction time frame, then get rid of it. If it's built later it can always be re-added. I have a fair amount of proposed roads in my area too, but the freeways which were proposed decades ago and not only were never built, but almost certainly never will be, never were added to OSM. I probably should research the others to see what the statuses of the respective proposals are now, especially those that have been sitting there a while. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
2015-01-29 8:43 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: OSM should map current situation - not what was there or what will be. what was there and what will be is part of the current situation. after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built sounds nice but always there will be somebody convinced that proposal is real. For example my city has multiple proposed roads - that are in official planes for decades (one since at least 1960s), with start of construction within 25 years since initial proposal. you don't _have_ to enter this kind of feature, in the end it is up to the mappers to decide what to insert and what not, and in the cases you describe above, it seems of few interest to add these, but in other cases it might make sense. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: removed: (features that do not exist anymore but may still be seen on other sources) [@Martin: leave a mention to the other sources] I see no harm in leaving them in OSM. Untill something is built there or the landuse/cover changes. Leave it there so no one re adds it. Remove it only when new features take its place, so the new features are not confused by the past. In most cases they can be simply removed from database. But here with 'removed:' I propose to leave an outline in OSM DB with the tag namespaced removed:*=* so that they appear on editors but are not otherwise rendered or used. Similarly 'error:' was a proposal for tag namespaced error:*=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
If the proposal was from between 1960 and 1969, within 25 years would have been no later than the end of 1994, possibly as early as 1985 Every few year local government releases new plans - so in 1994 it was planned to start around 2020. Currently there are plans to start construction in 2030 (there is even preliminary project, but nobody has idea how to fund tunnel that even before cost overruns costs more that entire yearly budget of the city). have a fair amount of proposed roads in my area too, but the freeways which were proposed decades ago and not only were never built, but almost certainly never will be, never were added to OSM. Just a simple mapper believing that the projects are still serious is enough to map roads that are de facto fictional. And then it is nearly impossible to remove this data. 2015-01-29 9:24 GMT+01:00 Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com: On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 08:43 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Yes, my opinion is that all highway=proposed should be removed. I think this is an absolutely awful idea. after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built sounds nice but always there will be somebody convinced that proposal is real. For example my city has multiple proposed roads - that are in official planes for decades (one since at least 1960s), with start of construction within 25 years since initial proposal. If the proposal was from between 1960 and 1969, within 25 years would have been no later than the end of 1994, possibly as early as 1985. So on those, I would be okay with removal unless construction suddenly becomes imminent, because we are long past that point. On newer proposals, maybe a grace period of 3 months to a year after the stated construction time frame, then get rid of it. If it's built later it can always be re-added. I have a fair amount of proposed roads in my area too, but the freeways which were proposed decades ago and not only were never built, but almost certainly never will be, never were added to OSM. I probably should research the others to see what the statuses of the respective proposals are now, especially those that have been sitting there a while. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: thank you all for the unexpected attention, the problematic text snippet was cutpaste from [[Comparison of life cycle concepts]] where it must have been lurking for some time. [[Comparison of life cycle concepts]] is meant as an overview. I approve very much your edit for reduced section [duplication with lifecycle prefix]. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or is only proposed has no place in OSM. +1. No place on rendered map and apps. +/-1. No place on DB. With possible caveat that features that are extremely likely to be added (recently destroyed building visible on aerial images etc) element with note explaining situations makes sense. +1. Tag:note=* is useful for such cases. But not a full tagging scheme! -1. If you keep the outline in OSM database, removed:building=* instead of building=* is efficient, can be quicker than free-form note=*, clear and informative. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
I just stumbled over this in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix *removed:* - (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources, because this has nothing to do with removed. If people want to tag easter eggs or errors from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
removed: (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources, because this has nothing to do with removed. If people want to tag easter eggs or errors from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it. Only it was simpler with only one tag to remove a feature from a ground survey but without first-hand knowledge of the full history or if it is mentioned still in other sources (imagery, pictures, cadastre, ...). If something is mapped on OSM, but you are sure that it doesn't exist... Do you know for sure if it doesn't exist *anymore* or if it *never* existed in the first place? Using a distinct tag for absolute correctness may prevent a simple and worthwhile improvement. I propose error: (features that do not exist but may be seen on other sources) [generic, catchall for the two cases + leave a trace of the feature to prevent edit war] removed: (features that do not exist anymore but may still be seen on other sources) [@Martin: leave a mention to the other sources] eventually a third tag for: (features that never existed but may be seen on other sources) but two above may be enough. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On 1/28/15 8:09 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote: i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later. I guess that that makes sense here in a fix the mapper kind of way (I've certainly done similar things), but generally I wouldn't have thought that things that were once proposed but are now never going to be built belonged in OSM at all. i wouldn't either, it's a measure taken to end what otherwise might turn into something that looks like an edit war. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also agreed and has changed the description. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
maybe fiction: and an explanation in the note tag. Richard Welty wrote on 2015-01-28 13:46: On 1/28/15 7:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I just stumbled over this in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix *removed:* * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources, because this has nothing to do with removed. If people want to tag easter eggs or errors from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it. +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On 1/28/15 7:51 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: maybe fiction: and an explanation in the note tag. back in the 1960s, there were a bunch of proposals for motorways in the Albany, NY area that were never built (for good reason). a mapper added those as proposed maybe two years ago, which wasn't good because the default mapnik stylesheet renders them. i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later. some sort of generic tagging for such situations would be nice. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On 1/28/15 7:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I just stumbled over this in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix *removed:* * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources, because this has nothing to do with removed. If people want to tag easter eggs or errors from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it. +1 -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote: i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later. I guess that that makes sense here in a fix the mapper kind of way (I've certainly done similar things), but generally I wouldn't have thought that things that were once proposed but are now never going to be built belonged in OSM at all. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:22:51PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also
agreed and has changed the description.
thank you all for the unexpected attention, the problematic text snippet
was cutpaste from [[Comparison of life cycle concepts]] where it must
have been lurking for some time.
Its a bit early for the first April, but maybe someone will find my new
proposal for the fictional:mythical:{dead,undead}:{zombie,...} namespace
interesting.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On 29/01/2015 12:28 AM, althio wrote: removed: (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources, because this has nothing to do with removed. If people want to tag easter eggs or errors from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it. I propose error: (features that do not exist but may be seen on other sources) [generic, catchall for the two cases + leave a trace of the feature to prevent edit war] How about phantom: .. ? Some of these may be deliberate so the copyright holder can easily identify copies of their data. As such they are not errors but deliberate. removed: (features that do not exist anymore but may still be seen on other sources) [@Martin: leave a mention to the other sources] I see no harm in leaving them in OSM. Untill something is built there or the landuse/cover changes. Leave it there so no one re adds it. Remove it only when new features take its place, so the new features are not confused by the past. eventually a third tag for: (features that never existed but may be seen on other sources) but two above may be enough. Same as phantom? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On 28/01/2015 21:57, John F. Eldredge wrote: Well, you also have the status proposed, but no start date set, which would fit some subdivision maps I have seen. I am not sure how one would tag that. Again, I probably wouldn't add that, until it has got a projected start date (and a budget!). In the UK at least, local authorities often propose all sorts of pie-in-the-sky schemes for bypasses etc. for political reasons. Until they've got funding it makes no sense to assume that they're going to happen. To me it makes sense for something like HS2 phase 2*1 (the new high speed rail lines north of Birmingham) to be in OSM, despite the necessary act of parliament not having been passed yet*2, because there is funding and considerable political will behind it. The Lincoln Eastern Bypass*3, not so much*4. Cheers, Andy *1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4124756 *2 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9P3WYTZTWRkJ:http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06624.pdf%2B%22hs2+phase+2%22+act+of+parliamenttbs=li:1hl=enct=clnk *3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167220760/history *4 http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2014/07/lincoln-eastern-bypass-rejected-public-inquiry/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or is only proposed has no place in OSM. With possible caveat that features that are extremely likely to be added (recently destroyed building visible on aerial images etc) element with note explaining situations makes sense. But not a full tagging scheme! 2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, On 01/28/2015 01:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: *removed:* * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources, because this has nothing to do with removed. Frankly, a feature that does not exist anymore has no place in OSM in my opinion. If there used to be a castle and now there's a ruin, then we tag that as a ruin (with potential add-on info about its former castle status). If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a lifecycle tag of removed. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 22:42 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or is only proposed has no place in OSM. So you want to get rid of proposed roads, too? Having a proposed road on the map is good to see what has been planned for the future. Now, after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built, that's a different story, it should be removed. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
On January 28, 2015 7:09:01 AM CST, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote: i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later. I guess that that makes sense here in a fix the mapper kind of way (I've certainly done similar things), but generally I wouldn't have thought that things that were once proposed but are now never going to be built belonged in OSM at all. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Well, you also have the status proposed, but no start date set, which would fit some subdivision maps I have seen. I am not sure how one would tag that. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Yes, my opinion is that all highway=proposed should be removed. OSM should map current situation - not what was there or what will be. after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built sounds nice but always there will be somebody convinced that proposal is real. For example my city has multiple proposed roads - that are in official planes for decades (one since at least 1960s), with start of construction within 25 years since initial proposal. 2015-01-29 0:53 GMT+01:00 Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com: On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 22:42 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or is only proposed has no place in OSM. So you want to get rid of proposed roads, too? Having a proposed road on the map is good to see what has been planned for the future. Now, after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built, that's a different story, it should be removed. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Hi, On 01/28/2015 01:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: *removed:* * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources, because this has nothing to do with removed. Frankly, a feature that does not exist anymore has no place in OSM in my opinion. If there used to be a castle and now there's a ruin, then we tag that as a ruin (with potential add-on info about its former castle status). If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a lifecycle tag of removed. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED
Several freeways that were designed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Baghdad, IQ area got tagged similarly to that (highway=unbuilt or similar). No idea if they were later built by some authority. Also didn't know if it was inside knowledge by a returning soldier past the end of whatever applicable NDA was in play or someone pulled a big-ass FOIA request and found 'em. Or if Sam Baldock (the same one for which segments of Iraq Highway 1 (prior to and once again after Hussein's rule) and a long section of Interstate 5 in Oregon were named after; he was a prolific civil engineer in both regions) had designed 'em and they were never built after the 1968 Ba'ath Revolution. Normally not a fan of source tags on anything smaller than a whole changeset, but in this case, it would save a whole lot of research trying to find where a strange but plausible edit came from. On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 1/28/15 7:51 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: maybe fiction: and an explanation in the note tag. back in the 1960s, there were a bunch of proposals for motorways in the Albany, NY area that were never built (for good reason). a mapper added those as proposed maybe two years ago, which wasn't good because the default mapnik stylesheet renders them. i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later. some sort of generic tagging for such situations would be nice. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
