Proposal talk:Construction (2008)

Comments

Proposal started at Talk:Key:construction --Nickvet419 12:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

While there is a small (IMHO negligible) benefit for the mappers with the proposed scheme, it is "cumbersome" for the users of the data. With the proposed scheme every query or rendering rule concerning highways has to look at the construction tag too, even though most of the highways won't have this tag.

• If you are not interested in highways under construction, then you don't have to do anything special with the current scheme, but you have to specifically exclude them with the proposed scheme.
• If you are interested in highways under construction, then you do need two rules/queries with both schemes.
• If you want to lump highways under construction and those not under construction together, then the proposed scheme makes it simpler. But I don't see much use for this last case.

--Cartinus 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• What if the highway is usable but just under construction? --Nickvet419 08:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• As the person who had the original construction tagging scheme, I also originally proposed just a "construction=yes" tag, but the exact same issue as Cartinus has raised came up then. Any render without a check for a "construction=yes" tag will render it as open to traffic. Nickvet's suggestion might be true in some cases, but most major road projects I've ever seen have been closed to non-works traffic. In light of the fact that there aren't a massive number of roads under construction, it's not a massive issue to continue with the current tagging scheme...In fact, it's probably more of a pain to change the rendering rules for both T@H, Mapnik, and to change the tags on existing schemes. Richard B 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The way it seems now on OSM is when a road in under construction it is not passable. is that correct? Here in the US, Major highways and roads are under construction every few years. They usualy reduse the number of lanes and speed while they work on the closed lanes. Only small residentual roads usually get closed to traffic. --Nickvet419 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Under construction means "being constructed" - i.e. it was green fields or similar to start with - and eventually will become a road open to traffic - but usually from my experience it remains closed until nearly completed. From what you are talking about, it sounds like you mean what people in the UK would call "roadworks". In my experience they are usually too temporary to mark on the map - but that sounds like a possible map overlay perhaps. Richard B 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I think for routing purposes we should create a tag to mark when a road is under construction/roadworks. Also, corrisponding tags for road closers, alternate speeds, compleation dates, detours, ect... --Nickvet419 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cartinus wrote: With the proposed scheme every query or rendering rule concerning highways has to look at the construction tag too, even though most of the highways won't have this tag.

The same argument applies for all additional tags wich further describe the highway, lots of them are also important for rendering/routing. Especially notable the Key:access but also thinks like Key:maxspeed, Key:maxheight etc. etc. So i don't see your point really. --Meier 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You kind of answered yourself. Those other tags are additional tags, that more fully describe the highway. A highway under construction on the other hand, is not a highway at all. There are plenty of situations where one doesn't care about the additional stuff, but one almost never wants to count a construction site as a real highway. --Cartinus 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well under construction doesn't always mean it is build from scratch. Also with my comment i wanted to make clear that there is no problem for the renderer/router. If one names it a highway under construction or a construction site wich will become a highway is really spltting hairs. Also in most maps i know they are renered like the same class higways but with another color scheme.

Archive

This proposal was superseded by Proposed_features/Building_site and Proposed_features/Road/Rail_under_construction

Purpose

The construction tag marks areas where gpx trace may mis-lead other OSM contributors. It should be used to bring attention to traces made during temporary construction lane diversions / detours. It should also be used to mark areas that are undergoing permanent construction changes.

See also Proposed_features/Road/Rail_under_construction for a similar proposal.

Example

- k="landuse", v="construction" - k="note", v="Do not adjust. NB lanes diverted into SB lanes for NB Bridge reconstruction. Scheduled completion summer 2008"

or

- k="landuse", v="construction" - k="note", v="New interchange pattern. Adjust this interchange after completion (summer 2008)"

See also

Similar related proposal Proposed_features/Building_site

Alternative proposal “Status”

I’ve created a proposal that handles construction as well as disused/abandoned features, see Proposed features/Status. Instead of construction=yes, disused=yes etc., you’d tag this as status=construction, status=disused (or as has been suggested during discussion, lifecycle=construction, lifecycle=disused). This has several advantages, among others:

• less problems with renderer/application support: once they know that a status not equal to in_use means that the feature is not usable at the moment, a mapper can make up own status tags without having to worry about roads being displayed as usable when they are not
• no name conflicts when introducing more status information, as status information is in the value, not the key

I’m not aware of significant disadvantages compared with the solution proposed here. (It shares some of the problems, however, and they are being pointed out by the same users. ;-)) --Tordanik 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Status was rejected ... -- Schusch 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, status was rejected. But read the reasons given by those opposing the status proposal:

• "See Talk:Proposed features/Construction for reasons why this is a bad idea." (!)
• "This would cause the renderer to look for two tags instead for one - this is double work. I oppose for performance reasons."
• "his is going to make anything that currently uses osm data to be updated, therefore it is not backwards compatible."
• "If a highway=construction, construction=* tag is parsed by an render without support for that - then it won't show up - big deal as it doesn't yet exist as a road open to traffic. If a highway=disused etc. is put through a renderer without support for that, then it won't show up - no loss there - as it no longer exists. If a highway=*, status=disused etc. is parsed by a renderer without that support - then it shows up as a normal road - even if nothing is there on the ground."
• "not a good way to solve the issue, not backwards compatible - prone to older programs that use OSM data rendering abandoned/unfinished things as if they are fully operational, thus confusing the users"

Every single argument against the status proposal (except not liking the key name) is a valid argument against construction=yes. At the same time, construction=yes even loses one of the major advantages of the status proposal -- that looking for one key is enough to check all non-usable states. So I see no good reason while this one should succeed. --Tordanik 09:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to give some current information about the status proposal--it was not a judgement. I could also live with a status tag--but the proposal is rejected. So if you want my opinion: I also think the life-cycle concept is a bit too complicated (but you can use it in a general way). I at first don't think it is senseful to have a tag for a default status (life_cycle=in_use), but of course one can omit this one. For the other two we can use construction=yes and disused=yes which are a lot easier to remember ... and also can be used for roads, benches, post boxes or whatever; what I don't like at all: the more complex construct highway=construction, construction=secondary--I think this is confusing the people, you have to look at two tags to get what you are looking at. I firstly want to know that there is a residential highway--afterwards it may be interesting that it is on construction. So, tagging something with construction=yes is straightforward for me :-) -- Schusch 15:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

life_cycle=construction or life_cycle=disused is "complicated" compared with construction=yes or disused=yes? life_cycle=in_use would of course never have been set explicitly, just as construction=no. But that doesn't really matter, I agree that I do not like the highway=construction hack. --Tordanik 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

support

• from me :-) -- Schusch 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)