Proposal:Building site
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal building site is located at Tag:landuse=construction |
| Building site | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Tagging: | landuse=construction |
| Statistics: |
|
| Vote start: | 2007-11-02 |
| Vote end: | 2007-12-10 |
Rationale
Many cities undergo large development schemes that can see substantial parts of the city closed off for many months or years. Displaying this on a map can be useful either as a way to know to avoid the area, due to works traffic affecting the surrounding roads, or as a navigational aid as large construction sites tend to be quite noticeable. It will also be useful as it will stop blank areas showing up on the map so that mappers know not to map the area and users of the map don't think something has been missed off.
This is conceptually different to brownfield - brownfield suggests more of a flat wasteground that hasn't yet begun development, whereas this tag suggests active construction.
It is likely that this tag would only be used on large construction projects that are operating over an extended period of time, but obviously mappers will have to use their own judgement on the meaning of "large" and "extended period of time".
Tags
This proposal introduces a single *new* key and value pair:
* landuse=construction
Existing tags could probably be used to add information, for example:
* name=The Big Dig * operator=Beetham
Rendering
I would suggest rendering this with a grey coloured fill, but I'll let our cartographers decide on that, perhaps a crane icon could also be placed in the centre of the area and potentially the name too?
Discussion
Building sites seem too temporary in nature to mark on a map. Dmgroom 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)]
- On the other hand if a building sites are tagged, then OSM users can be ready to pounce on the new houses once there up. (I asume that was the intention of this proposal?) Ben. 19:35 18th Decemeber 2006 (UTC)
- How often do you see other maps stating "under construction" or "proposed"? Smsm1 22:36, 18 April 2007 (BST)
- If proposed building sites are entered into OSM, will there be a generated set for people to check back on from time to time to make them more permanent features? Sadam 18:56 UTC 11 June 2007
- I'm inclined to agree with Dmgroom Avantman42 19:54, 11 June 2007 (BST)
- +1 We have an old municipal airport (some 720 acres) that is being redeveloped. This takes place over several years to a decade. Certainly there would be some use in indicating that it is under construction. My point is that it is most certainly NOT an airport and deleting that information DOES serve a useful purpose--but what to replace that data with until it is actually redeveloped and mappable again? Methinks,"Under construction." chupacerveza 15:05, 11 June 2007 (CST)
We already have landuse:brownfield defined as "Describes land scheduled for new development where old buildings have been demolished and cleared", I've been using this to tag the big area's of land that are currently under development. Do we need to distinguish between brownfield and "under construction?". Once the building is finished this will be retagged. Should we tagging something temporal such as a building site? --Chris 22:56, 11 June 2007 (BST)
I think the purpose of this can be fulfilled with landuse=brownfield. --Hawke 22:58, 11 June 2007 (BST)
- I fully agree that the existing landuse=brownfield, or landuse=greenfield cover this already --spaetz 14:05, 12 June 2007 (BST)
- A brownfield site is an area that used to be used for industry and therfore has the OK to build on again once cleaned up. That doesn't mean it is land currently being built on. A building site tag would be good as its a good way of pointing OSM'ers to it, to make people keep there eye on it, and it would enshore new houseing estates are noticed and mapped quickly. landuse=construction does make sence though. I would support that. Ben 00:01, 13 June 2007 (BST)
- brownfield: "Describes land scheduled for new development where old buildings have been demolished and cleared." nowhere do i see the mention of industry usage, and it specifically says, that things have already been cleared. I see the fine line between this state and actual building going on, but ..well.. I just don't see the additional value added. but whatsoever, i'm not against this tag, i just won't bother with it. --spaetz 12:39, 13 June 2007 (BST)
- In the UK it can be used for where any building has been before, but for most of the world "Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contaminations." It doesn't matter which definition we go with, neither are construction sites. The land is just "Scheduled for new development". Construction sites are in the building process and are inportant to keep an eye on in OSM, so they can be mapped. Ben 16:57, 13 June 2007 (BST)
I withdraw my comments that brownfield is sufficient. --Hawke 23:07, 14 June 2007 (BST)
Would this be any building site (we don't map every completed house for example) or just large sites such as airports (more likely to take 12+ months).
I see a few main uses of seeing this on a map: Avoiding the area (works traffic can affect surronding roads/motorways). Navigational (torn up land or new concrete, big trucks and tall cranes are something you do spot when driving). Getting an idea of the local area before visiting? Works traffic/delivery knowing where to go (some big sites have directional signs around the area)?
LastGrape 23:46, 14 June 2007 (BST)
I agree that we need a tag to cover construction sites but I believe that it should be landuse=under_construction rather than construction alone. Construction can be misleading because by itself its definition can be open to interpretation. under_construction makes its clear its construction that is incomplete. Blackadder 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Vote here
- I approve this proposal --Mcknut 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --TomChance 10:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --Tshannon 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --MikeCollinson 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --LastGrape 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --DavidDean 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --Geoff 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal --Sec 06:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal, OSM has the capacity to update quickly as the landscape changes --inas 00:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
See also
See related proposal Proposed_features/Road/Rail_under_construction