"Paper streets" in a partially-built subdivision are more likely to be developed in the near future than is a totally-imaginary city located where no development is currently planned. So, they are likely to be of more interest to people. Any such proposed streets should be replaced, over time, as real construction takes place.
Chances are that, as real development takes place, some of the real streets will be in the originally-planned locations, and some won't be. -------Original Email------- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Paper streets? >From :mailto:[email protected] Date :Mon Oct 18 17:12:31 America/Chicago 2010 On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I'm wondering if there's any benefit in mapping "paper streets" - streets that have been officially dedicated to the government by the former landowner but that have not (yet) been constructed. For example, they may explain a truncated grid (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.39687&lon=-81.50172&zoom=17&layers=M) or two disconnected streets having the same name, and they are often used in legal land descriptions. Some of these qualify for highway=proposed. But if there are no current plans to build them, would it be a good idea to map them as (for example) highway=paper name=*? If you read this diary entry: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/djwright7101/diary/12027 there is a strong opposition about imaginary cities. But it seems that imaginary roads are tolerated... Pieren _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- [email protected] "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
