Proposal:Road/Rail proposed

This map feature proposal has been abandoned due to objections regarding verifiability.

Road/Rail proposed
Proposal status:	Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by:	*
Tagging:	status=abandoned
Statistics:
Rendered as:	As per the original way - but dashed (shorter dashes than for under constr. proposal)

This map feature proposal has been abandoned due to objections regarding verifiability.

Rationale

Virtually all commercial mapping shows roads which are proposed.

Applies to

Ways - could be roads or rails

Usage

A road which is proposed along a route could be tagged as;

<tag k="highway" v="primary"/>
<tag k="status" v="proposed"/>

Perhaps we could also add something like

<tag k="opening_date" v="YYYY/MM"/>

to illustrate the expected opening date.

See also

Please also have a look at proposed=* which deals with the same issue in a more generic way (not restricted to road and rail, doesn't break rendering if key is not known) --Dieterdreist 11:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rendering

I propose that we render it in roughly the same way as most commercial maps do i.e. with dashed lines. The colour would be the same as that of the main highway tag - i.e. motorway, blue; trunk, red; primary green etc. Should be distinct from the proposal at Proposed features/Road/Rail under construction

If we have the "opening_date" tag as well - most commercial maps include some sort of text along the way e.g. "Proposed: Opening July 2008"

Misc

Major road and rail schemes typically are at the "proposal" state for in excess of a couple of years. There shouldn't therefore be too much of a problem with things getting out of date too quickly.

It will be difficult to source the data without referring heavily on maps on the website/in the local authority plans - but perhaps a rough route might be better than nothing.

We might miss several schemes - but then again - so do most commerical mapping organisations.

Richard B 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

I don't disagree that this might be the way to go, but purely for the sake of discussion: What about simply adding a highway=proposed value? This would lose the ability to show in colouring the type of highway / railway proposed but would avoid renderers and routing software having to always check for a 'status' tag for each and every highway. The type of highway could still be implied by the name: name=M6000 (Proposed), name=Amazing Cycleway (Proposed). Same for highway=under_construction. Just a thought. MikeCollinson 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Another option might be;

• <key="proposed" tag="motorway"> - rendered as a blue dashed or dotted line - same width/colour as for highway,motorway
• <key="proposed" tag="road"> - rendered as a red dashed or dotted line say - same width/colour as for highway,trunk
• <key="proposed" tag="rail"> - rendered as a black dashed or dotted line - the same width/colour as for railway,rail
• <key="proposed" tag="user-defined"> - renders as thin grey dashed or dotted line - used for anything else.

Then that gives us some visible distinction between a new motorway scheme and, say a railway scheme - we could add the usual ref=...(proposed) as well. Richard B 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean using them together, highway=proposed proposed=motorway. Yes, that makes perfect sense. There is no extra load on the renderer checking extra keys for normal roads, the renderer does not have to look for the proposed key, the mapper only needs to record if he actually know what is being constructed (more applicable to under_construction when you suddenly come across those earth movers in the middle of no where) and yet all the information can be recorded and displayed as desired. MikeCollinson 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that proposed infrastructure should be shown on OpenStreetMap because:

1. They don't actually exist, so they are of no use for navigation. There is no physical evidence of their existence, so they cannot be surveyed using a GPS or satellite photos.
2. Proposed infrastructure undergoes a planning process that takes years. They are often never actually built - dozens of major pieces of infrastructure have been cancelled in Toronto alone.
3. It is very difficult to map proposed infrastructure without referring to copyrighted maps (in planning documents or commercial maps).

Infrastructure that is actually under construction should, however, be shown because there is physical evidence of construction (and thus it is possible to survey them), because they are likely to be completed, and because they are useful for navigation when looking at outdated maps (which show completed infrastructure as under construction, rather than non existent) and when trying to look for or avoid construction areas. Andrewpmk 18:15, 1 September 2007 (BST)

I totally agree with Andrewpmk, and the construction=type_of_way is enough for what's at the point of being, or already partly constructed --PhilippeP 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What about highways that do exist but are proposed to be extended? For example, a highway=primary that is proposed to become a highway=motorway? I'd like to suggest to use highway|waterway|railway|...=nonexistant for all ways which do not currently exist. For further information, a relation with type=project and project_status=planned|under_construction|cancelled|... should be created. This relation would carry all the tags the projected feature will have (would have had) when it has been (had been) completed (e.g. highway=primary, bridge=yes,...). The relation can also have existing features as members; in that case, it carries the tags that will differ from their current status. -- 3247 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not use a status=proposed tag. Renderers don't know it, which causes the road to show up on the map, which is stupid. I like the highway=proposed (or rail=proposed), proposed=motorway scheme; it simply works, and can be used seamlessly for proposals which intend to up- or downgrade roads.
I think we should map proposals, if for no other reason than the strange idea that somebody might want to go and check whether the road's there yet. *g*
Also, maps may be used for planning things other than road trips. I'm not going to even think about building my dream home on the slopes of a valley which somebody proposes to build a highway through! which will save me the travel time+effort to said valley in the first place. Smurf 07:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)