James Davis wrote: > Whilst the actual junction has been completed, as far as I'm able > to tell the new route is very much 'proposed' and subject to > planning, and no firm route or timescale have been agreed > on. I'm not sure that this makes the sort of feature that should > be included yet. Are there any guidelines on features this > early in their construction?
Ignoring general OSM principles for a minute, I'd recommend very strongly against including proposed routes of waterways. These can change hugely right up to the minute of construction (and that may be 20+ years away), as essentially waterway restoration depends on attracting third-party funding, and the funders can therefore dictate priorities. If your primary funder is the Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, it might be important that the waterway keeps to the original course. If it's the local RDA, they will be seeking maximum regeneration benefit which might dictate a different route. And all of this can change depending on engineering opportunities - the Huddersfield Narrow, for example, was expected to take a diversion through Stalybridge until the last moment, when a factory on the original line went bust, and the restorers were able to reclaim the historic course. (At the other end, in Huddersfield, a new tunnel was created at great expense under two factories. The factories have now decided to relocate so that their sites can be sold lucratively for bijou canalside apartments, and the tunnel is to be opened out. Hey ho.) Pretty much every derelict canal in the UK has a restoration society now. (The only significant exception I can think of, on the connected system, is the Nottingham Canal.) I'd be amazed if they were all done within the next 40 years... so maybe a bit premature to mark them on maps. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
