Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Stop rendering highway=proposed #908

Closed
systemed opened this issue Aug 26, 2014 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@systemed
Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 26, 2014

Given that abandoned railways (which are often significant landscape features visible on the ground) are no longer rendered, I don't see much rationale for rendering highway=proposed, given that it may just be a stroke of a bureaucrat's pen and offers no guarantee that anything will be constructed ever.

Example: see this thread where a proposed route was entered into OSM and has been rendered ever since, but a local highways officer (in the followup post) confirms that proposal has been cancelled - not something that can be verified on the ground as, well, nothing has changed.

Related: #863.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 26, 2014

This proposal was (unfortunately) rejected by @gravitystorm here: #345 (comment)

@systemed

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 26, 2014

There's a "for now" in there - almost six months on, and post- railway=abandoned change, I think it deserves reconsideration.

@vincentdephily

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 26, 2014

I have a slight preference for keeping them in.

The rationale is that they can be of interest for many people : for example in my hometown one of these has been the subject of a lot of controversy, made the national news, the opponents are still maintaining a 24/7 picketing line now that construction proper has started, etc. Having a rendering of this proposed highway is important to "normal" users, as opposed to abandoned railways which are IMHO only important to history-inclined users.

That said, there's something to be said about the "stroke of a pen" issue. My immediate reaction is that mappers will execise caution in mapping only the less whimsical projects (as I have done in my hometown: the other proposed highway at the heart of the controversy is not as assured yet, and not mapped). We could also argue for a tagging distinction, by rendering highway=planned but ignoring =proposed... Except that "planed" is used ~100 times vs ~40000 for "proposed", so that tag isn't properly in use yet.

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 27, 2014

Not sure what this has to do with abandoned/non existent railways but I too am 50/50 about this. Many real World maps do have proposed on them, however they are more likely to be likely happening and more verified than some of the osm proposed tags.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 28, 2014

@Rovastar wonders what this has to do with railways which still exist as hedgerows, treelines, linear fills or cuts, or ways which are not even foot paths but are easily discernible through an absence of vegetation. Well, the precedent has been set that existing features will not be rendered at any zoom level. Surely, then, something that doesn't exist on the ground, MUST NOT be rendered.

@lest69

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 28, 2014

There are lots of "existing" features that are not currently rendered on this map, and some "non-existing" features that are (ie. admin boundaries). The physical existence of something on the ground is not the determining factor for something being rendered on this map. Based on what I read in #542, rail=abandoned was dropped primarily due to poor/lazy tagging which was leading to undesired results. If that can be sorted out, there might be a case made for re-rendering them.

Regardless, the decisions made regarding rail=abandoned do not automatically affect the rendering of highway=proposed or any other feature.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 28, 2014

It is usually impossible to verify whatever road is proposed (example mentioned by @systemed is a really good one) and some are proposed for decades before anything happens (sometimes construction, sometimes final cancellation).

I would propose to no render this.

I am sure that

As for highway=proposed, lets keep rendering it for now, but I'm 50/50 on whether it's something that a standard map style would be involved in.

from 2014-03-21 by @gravitystorm is not a clear rejection.

@lest69

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 28, 2014

While I would like to see highway=proposed remain rendered, I'm also starting to understand why some people would rather it weren't. The example shown by @systemed, along with other anecdotal examples, tell me the tag isn't being properly used. A proposed road that has long-since been cancelled or one that is just a pie-in-the-sky idea with little to no likelihood of ever actually being built should not be rendered on this map, but apparently this is happening. I think more restrictions need to be placed on the tagging (e.g. only used for roads which have been officially approved) to improve things on the tagging side. Until that happens, maybe it is better to not render them here.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 28, 2014

Well, Trasa Zwierzyniecka ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.0563&mlon=19.8918#map=16/50.0563/19.8918 ) is officially approved, there is an initial project ( http://zikit.krakow.pl/audyty-rowerowe/4717-koncepcja-uzupeniajca-dla-trasy-zwierzynieckiej-i-pychowickiej ), construction start is planned now for 2026.

But planned cost is about half of budget available to city, there is no secured external funding and there are many more critical major roads that need to be constructed (Northern Bypass etc).

As result there is an official plan, but it is clear that it is a pure fiction and nothing will be constructed in foreseeable future.

And it is officially planned since at least 1980s.

It is typical in Poland, there are many cases of similar ghost projects (or examples of deep foresight, difference is subjective).

@harry-wood

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 6, 2014

This tagging surely goes against our verifiability principles (although predates it I guess) I never particularly noticed that we were rendering it until someone corrected me on twitter just now: https://twitter.com/Just_Super/status/507959115512295424

I agree it should be dropped, but we'll provoke less bickering by fading it out. Move towards the "nicer rendering" #863 (which is a less prominent rendering) , and in about year from now, drop it entirely. At that point it becomes easier to start telling mappers on the wiki that this data is to be removed on the grounds of verifiability, which I think is what ultimately needs to happen.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 6, 2014

Il giorno 06/set/2014, alle ore 13:26, Harry Wood notifications@github.com ha scritto:

This tagging surely goes against our verifiability principles

I don't think it does, you can usually verify the "existence" of proposed roads by the time they get inserted. In various discussions on local lists there have also been stated some basic country dependent rules when it might be appropriate to enter a road into osm (eg in Germany there was the idea that you should wait until actually money was allocated to build the road so that very early stages would not confuse people with uncertain proposals). For significant planning there is typically an involvement of the citizens (even if only pro forma, this means that the planning is publicly viewable so you can voice your objections)=

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Oct 19, 2014

Yet another example of highway=proposed that will stay as proposed for at least decades.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/41.7355/-87.5300

selection_003

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.