Hello - Andy from the DWG here again.
We received a complaint about a user adding “planned” developments in a couple of locations. One of them is the Bakerloo Line Extension. The complaint was that this edit was “planned” and “not verifiable”. In some cases with “planned” routes such as “XYZ parish council would like a bypass” it doesn’t make sense to add them to OSM. However where there has actually been consultation and there is current safeguarding then I’d argue that something is somewhat verifiable, even if there is no construction currently.
If I’m right about all that (and I may not be) the next question what would make sense to map. The current addition in OSM is a line rather than an area and doesn’t distinguish between “areas of sub-surface interest” “areas of surface interest”, which it probably should.
There’s also the question of under what licence the data used to update OSM was released under. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t compatible data available somewhere. The original adder of the data hasn’t been active in OSM for a couple of months, unfortunately.
Unless anyone tells me differently I don’t think that the DWG needs to do anything here, but local mappers may want to…