"If the proposal was from between 1960 and 1969, "within 25 years" would have been no later than the end of 1994, possibly as early as 1985"
Every few year local government releases new plans - so in 1994 it was planned to start around 2020. Currently there are plans to start construction in 2030 (there is even preliminary project, but nobody has idea how to fund tunnel that even before cost overruns costs more that entire yearly budget of the city). "have a fair amount of proposed roads in my area too, but the freeways which were proposed decades ago and not only were never built, but almost certainly never will be, never were added to OSM." Just a simple mapper believing that the projects are still serious is enough to map roads that are de facto fictional. And then it is nearly impossible to remove this "data". 2015-01-29 9:24 GMT+01:00 Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>: > On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 08:43 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Yes, my opinion is that all highway=proposed should be removed. > > I think this is an absolutely awful idea. > > > "after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built" sounds > > nice but > > always there will be somebody convinced that proposal is real. For > > example > > my city has multiple proposed roads - that are in official planes for > > decades > > (one since at least 1960s), with start of construction "within 25 > > years" since > > initial proposal. > > If the proposal was from between 1960 and 1969, "within 25 years" would > have been no later than the end of 1994, possibly as early as 1985. So > on those, I would be okay with removal unless construction suddenly > becomes imminent, because we are long past that point. On newer > proposals, maybe a grace period of 3 months to a year after the stated > construction time frame, then get rid of it. If it's built later it can > always be re-added. > > I have a fair amount of proposed roads in my area too, but the freeways > which were proposed decades ago and not only were never built, but > almost certainly never will be, never were added to OSM. I probably > should research the others to see what the statuses of the respective > proposals are now, especially those that have been sitting there a > while. > > -- > Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
