building=proposed

[Hedaja]

Hi
i think building=proposed is rendered too prominent. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.03737/13.73597)
It's nice that it gets renderesd beneath roads, but there is no other hint that this isn't a real building yet.
Maybe just the outline could be rendered as a dotted line.

[RobJN]

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there is no special treatment of this building tag. Anything with building=* gets rendered the same way (except for building=residential that gets the same area colour but not the outline).

Perhaps use the construction tag when work starts. Proposals shouldn't really be in the map (ground truth only).

[Hedaja]

But there are a lot of proposals in OSM (like highway=proposed). Proposed highways even get rendered (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230773915). I think it would be okay if proposed buildings wouldn't be rendered at all.
The "on the ground rule" is mainly used if there is a dispute between external data and survey (like street names)

-Hedaja

[RobJN]

Yeah, I think that's a hang over from the days of paper maps for road users. During the big road building projects it helped to show proposed new roads.

Personally I don't mind proposals being in OSM, but we have to be careful to include only those proposals that are actually going to get built. I'm in favour of only using proposed when the project is fully funded and has a start date, or the first spade goes in the ground.

As for buildings, why not used proposed:building=*. There are over 500 uses of this:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/proposed%3Abuilding

But I agree that we shouldn't be rendering building=proposed.

[Hedaja]

I'm a bit unhappy about all these different tagging schemes for proposed thinks. You can use the normal key-value combination (highway=primary) and add proposed=yes. You can tag it as you said with proposed: or you use say highway=proposed proposed=primary. But thats another problem.
So it would be good not only to exclude (or change the renderstyle) building=proposed but the other taggin schemes too.

[pnorman]

I'm a bit unhappy about all these different tagging schemes for proposed thinks. You can use the normal key-value combination (highway=primary) and add proposed=yes.

No, that is quite clearly wrong. I can't find the ticket, but I believe Andy has said that tagging like proposed=yes, construction=yes and demolished=yes will not be supported.

[matthijsmelissen]

For background info, see the Comparison of life cycle concepts.

I agree that the proposed/construction/demolished=yes scheme is problematic (because of the first mentioned disadvantage: If an application does not interpret the tagging then the feature will be treated as being in operation), and that we should not encourage it's use by rendering it.

In #345, @gravitystorm has given proposed keys (in the context of highways) the benefit of the doubt. For now, I think removing 'proposed' from the catch-all should be sufficient.

[matkoniecz]

I am against rendering anything=proposed, especially when it looks exactly like a normal building.

[pnorman]

In #345, @gravitystorm has given proposed keys (in the context of highways) the benefit of the doubt.

That is a materially different case, as it's dealing with the materially different schema of highway=proposed proposed=motorway. This case is closer to highway=motorway proposed=yes, in that you need to special-case it to avoid considering it a normal building

[matkoniecz]

I am now changing opinion, I think that bug is in tagging not in rendering - and tagging should be changed to something more usable by data consumers.

Freeform building=* tag is in a completely different situation, highway=* has strictly limited number of possible values.

[Hedaja]

I don't think changing the tagging would be good. Having a different tagging schemes for proposed buildings and other proposed things would make it a lot harder for mappers.
Wouldn't it be possible to look for building=proposed and just exclude it from rendering? (sry I have no idea of it :) )

[matkoniecz]

I admit than in general I consider tagging anything proposed as a bad idea.

[matthijsmelissen]

I think building=proposed is not ideal tagging, and there will be many other data consumers that will stumble over it as well.

We have 569 instances of building=proposed, and 578 of building:proposed=*. I would suggest moving to the latter scheme (which is already more popular), and will therefore close this issue.

[Hedaja]

I still don't think that using the second scheme is good. It means were are using two different proposed schemes vor highway and buildings. Shouldn't we try two avoid such things?
Using the scheme you recommended for highway doesn't seem to be possible (30 uses vs over 40k uses of highway=proposed).

[pnorman]

highway is entirely different as no one uses or renders arbitrary highway=* values.

[jojo4u]

Building=construction is also problematic.