I was reacting to the fact that some people were defining paper streets as "streets that haven't been built and never will be", rather than the definition used at the start of the discussion, "streets that haven't been built yet."
-------Original Email------- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Paper streets? >From :mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net Date :Tue Oct 19 15:57:03 America/Chicago 2010 On 10/19/10 4:22 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: > Some of the folks in this discussion seem to be assuming that, if a street is > shown on plans but has not yet been built at the time that an OSM mapper > marks the locations of the existing street, this guarantees that the street > will never be built in the future. I was not aware that having OSM map > streets was the kiss of death for any further development. > um, no. i think we're assuming (with some justification) that proposals do sometimes die, or get reshaped, and unless a mapper is actively tracking proposals they enter, the map can end up with a surprising number of dead proposals. roads under construction sometimes end up going away; i've been watching a development make agonizingly slow progress nearby for several years. the roads show, as rough dirt, in USGS aerial imagery from 3 years ago, they're still not paved. very limited activity is going on, and if the developer goes bust, the whole thing could end up slipping backwards so easily... i've put them in as highway=construction, but i also plan to keep an eye on the whole thing as i suspect the developer is in a borderline financial state. richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
