On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Nah, it was rather about what the priority is. A constrution site could > always be annotated with "this is planned to become a hotel", even though it > isn't a hotel; and a cut could always be annotated with "this was once > planned to become a railway" even though it isn't one. > > I just found the idea of saying "this is a railway - a never-built one, but > a railway nonetheless" a little extravagant.
Ok, yeah, there is definitely room for debate around how abstract we allow features in OSM to be. I wouldn't agree with planned-but-abandoned features being stored except in unusual circumstances. This kind of issue comes up with route relations in particular. What defines a "route"? How official does it have to be before OSM wants to know about it, etc. In this case, I think it would be generally acceptable to map the entire train line, even if only certain sections actually underwent any construction. Obviously there will be a point at which that becomes ridiculous though: if a train line was planned for 500km, but only 5 km saw any construction at all, maybe you'd only map whatever section of track contained that constructed section. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
