Proposal talk:Types of highway construction

Not suitable info

OSM doesn't have the data structure and expected update frequency in applications to make this useful. Construction and project details (eg "grade-separation" is still *=build ) belong in OHM.

• *=build : Can be inferred with the lack of lifecycle tags on the highway=construction
• *=pave : This is the most short term and inappropriate in OSM. Being paved can be some surface=unpaved + construction:surface=* , Repaving could be same construction:surface=* + demolished:surface=* . This is already done in demolished:electrified=* / abandoned:electrified=* ( OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Tracks basically deprecated deelectrified=* ) and construction:electrified=* widely, without requiring construction*=electrification explicitly.
• *=reconstruct : Can be inferred from a demolished:highway=* on the highway=construction
• *=other : No need for this. If there is nothing good, leave it out.

—— Kovposch (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added more values that might make you reconsider, along with some removals. Please take a moment to look at the updated version. You may also look in the Community Forum post for what has changed and the discussion.

Here's the list of updates:

* Removed construction_type=pave and construction_type=other to align with community requests in the Community Forum.

* Added construction_type=infrastructure and construction_type=related_work.

--Ewrt1 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• *=related_works : What situation would make them long enough to be considered in OSM???
• *=infrastructure : Roads are infrastructure, so it should be eg *=utility . But another problem together with the above is roads usually aren't fully closed. Even if it takes years, it might be lanes=2 + was:lanes=3 + construction:lanes=3 , or shoulder=no was:shoulder=right + construction:shoulder=right . highway=construction won't be used, and construction_type=* doesn't fit in.

Different works can happen together. Eg a rail project (is that what you include in *=infrastructure ? Or is it not handled?) can take the opportunity to improve a road by widening, straightening, etc. Is that a rail project, or road improvement? So in OHM, i would see a need for construction_reason=railway + construction_purpose=road + construction_works=build vs construction_reason=railway + construction_purpose=railway + construction_works=reconstruct .
Then, what is *=build ? Is that an entirely new road, a bypass or a new alignment (difference with entirely new road? gets complicated for numbered routes) , a local straightening, etc? This might be considered in OHM too. Again, I don't find this belonging to OSM.
—— Kovposch (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"What situation would make them long enough to be considered in OSM???" - yes, it sometimes can take months Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"roads usually aren't fully closed" - maybe combining it with construction=minor should be also valid Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

construction=minor can appear contradictory. "Major" works can be carried out, with construction=minor only meaning it's not closed. Ideally, construction=* should be unoverloaded, and it can be changed to eg construction_works=minor if that's still a good term.
Another risk is a router forgetting to allow construction=minor routing. That happened before. Routers can block highway=* + construction=* combinations, which is a pain when the construction=* of highway=construction isn't removed for some reason. https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/pull/4306
Do you know why construction=minor grew in recent years? After what's mentioned in that PR, there was a jump in 2019, followed by some sharp rise over the years. Relatedly, construction=widening is fell to less than half at 421.
—— Kovposch (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"construction=minor can appear contradictory" - why? "can be changed to eg construction_works=minor" - maybe you can convince people to deprecate it, but as of now it exists Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)