isn't problem with all this the word in the tag 'nonexistent' is ambiguous in that it could refers to (at least) three things:
. A road that has never never existed but is/was 'planned' - e.g. Monash Dr in Canberra . A road that used to exist but is now 'overgrown', 'rerouted', washed away, etc. . A road that never existed other than on a map, either by mistake or by intent (e.g. easter eggs) It would seem that lumping all under a single tag perpetuates ambiguity and confusion. In any case, they are mapping artifacts that should be recorded even if thy are not rendered by default. If they are not recorded and explained they will keep coming up and and people will keep revisiting and spending time on the issue. jim On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:03 AM, swanilli <[email protected]> wrote: > I forgot to vote myself: > > 1. No > 2. No > > 2009/10/26 swanilli <[email protected]> >> >> The current suggestion in >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines is that >> roads that do not yet exist be tagged "highway=nonexistent". >> >> There are two key questions to be answered: >> 1. Should such roads be entered into OSM? >> 2. If they are to be entered, should they be tagged highway=nonexistent? > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > -- _________________ Jim Croft ~ [email protected] ~ +61-2-62509499 ~ http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft ... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ... ... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
