I think Kerry's concern is about "proposed" routes being in the OSM db (and renders) when no such proposed routes exist. Taking a line from wikipedia (which I realize is tricky business), we shouldn't be doing original research in determining things, but rather documenting things that exist. If there are signs and a published route, that's obviously a route. If an organization that is generally viewed as having the authority to determine a route has published a proposal (which is stronger than 6 what-if scenarios), then that's fair to be in as proposed. But as I understand the situation, a cognizant organization has published a target corridor, not a proposed route.
But, this could be about having an actual published proposal and being concerned about it becoming widely available, and stopping that doesn't fit with OSM norms. I am also a little surprised about using the OSM database for "what if" rendering. It makes sense to use OSM data as the baselayer, and the toolchain for rendering what if, but if there isn't at least a published plan for a route (as in "this route is in the state's 20-year plan and we're working on funding, but if we had money this is what we'd do right now"), then putting various things people might want to do in the database seems to be very far away from verifiable and even not meeting the "accurately describe the world" test. But perhaps I misread some of the earlier comments.
pgpgSktyijK4J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
