[RFC] Feature Proposal - Types of highway construction (2)

This proposal will detail the types of highway construction.
Please view the proposal on the wiki.

Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
Please, cross post this announcement on the tagging mailing list on my behalf by sending an email to: tagging@openstreetmap.org

Can’t see the use of this.
Why “highway_construction:work” and not the shorter version “construction:work”?
Why not use “description”?

But any tag you like …

@R0bst3r construction:* is already an existing lifecycle prefix and it won’t make sense with the scope of this proposal.

description=* could be used for more info.

Anyways, the Wiki talk page is where discussions should be at.

I don’t see much difference between them, and remain doubtful on it. The advantage of a eg construction_work= and project:name= is they can be used on all =construction features, not only highway=construction for highway_construction*= here. Furthermore, project:name= can continue to be used on the finished feature, and be applied to Tag:message=funding - OpenStreetMap Wiki together.

  • =build : As I said, this doesn’t define what’s new. Is a local straightening, or widening to divided road (dualling) “new” ?
  • =related_work and =infrastructure : Unclear and overlapping. Both road and rail are infrastructure. If a road is being shifted to build an overpass, is this new build or associated works?

The usefulness in OSM is limited and short term. I invite you to discuss how to handle construction works in OHM instead.


I’ll second this. I don’t see a need for a highway-specific key different from other types of construction projects.

Some construction projects like major highway expansions or bridge replacements can take several decades to complete. Boston’s Big Dig is a prime example, but even near me in rural Canada is a motorway extension that I’ve been watching slowly creep along for 15 years.

I’d think that tagging highway=construction projects with items like a construction:operator=*, construction:url=*, project:name=* etc could be useful for future mappers to know where to look to find planned opening dates and other information about the project separate from the object that it will eventually be a part of. None of this is specific to highway construction that wouldn’t apply to any type of construction. These sorts of tags could also be applied to the construction=area around the Sagrada Família which has been under construction since 1883.

As mentioned by the author rightly, construction:*= is a conflict with the lifecycle prefix. They will be interpreted as the same as operator= and url= unprefixed. construction:operator= needs to be clarified as developer= , builder= , engineer= , architect= , etc, most of which are not defined with certainty yet. For construction:url= , I again suggest project:url= to be applied to advertising=board (+ message=funding ).
To go with them, before having construction_work= , I thought there should be project= =highway , =railway , =industrial , =residential, etc basically corresponding to landuse= vals for simplicity. There is no immediate need to distinguish new build vs associated works vs other infrastructure vs others. A road project can build many types of roads, and there is overlap with construction= .

Will consider removing related_work, thanks for the suggestion!

To clarify: The reason this could be used is that apps have a way to get details on some highway construction. For example, a maps service could display highway construction projects + details on the project.

Can someone please cross post this announcement on the tagging mailing list on my behalf by sending an email to: tagging@openstreetmap.org

already crossposted