From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening data format

The date for the opening shall use ISO format: YYYY-MM-DD. --Lulu-Ann 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This id documented at Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

construction = yes

I would like to propose a change in the use of the construction key. I think the workflow would be simplyfied if the object in question is simply tagged as any normal obejct and additionally gets a tag "construction=yes". This way after the construction is completed one only needs to remove the construction key. With the current scheme one has to copy the content from the construction-key to the obejct-key and then delete the construction-key. Example:

  • Current scheme
  • Proposed scheme

Meier 17:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See Proposed features/Construction--Nickvet419 12:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Some clients might not support (or even know about) the construction=yes tag and treat the usual (eg highway=motorway) tag on a feature as already constructed, using it for routing etc. --Stefanb 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You can avoid this if you are not connecting this construction roads with the normal roads. --GarryX3D 00:35, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

  • While there is a small (IMHO negligible) benefit for the mappers with the proposed scheme, it is "cumbersome" for the users of the data. With the proposed scheme every query or rendering rule concerning highways has to look at the construction tag too, even though most of the highways won't have this tag.
  • If you are not interested in highways under construction, then you don't have to do anything special with the current scheme, but you have to specifically exclude them with the proposed scheme.
  • If you are interested in highways under construction, then you do need two rules/queries with both schemes.
  • If you want to lump highways under construction and those not under construction together, then the proposed scheme makes it simpler. But I don't see much use for this last case.
--Cartinus 13:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed access

Is it appropriate to tag the _ramps_ to a motorway with this if they are not actively being built but are closed (i.e. for months at a time, as with a recent project on I-70 in Indiana) in order to relieve traffic on the motorway itself which is undergoing major roadworks? I.e. is this applicable to _any_ way that is "not usable due to construction going on", or just ones that are being built? Random832 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the ways, which are build. But you can use access=no instead. --Bahnpirat 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't display visually though. Random832 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does! In Osmarender this will be shown with red crosses. Example.

Bridge reconstruction

Does anybody have a suggestion how to treat bridges which are closed for two years for reconstruction? I think a tag which informs about the estimated reopening date would be helpful. Should I use bridge=construction? In this case, the proposed scheme of Meier would make sense to me.

--Peperkorn 07:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think bridge=construction would be very helpful, as bridge=* is only meant to specify whether a way is a bridge or not, and doing this wouldn't convey to renderers or other applications that the bridge is not currently usable. If it's the same bridge, being repaired in place, I'd say leave it tagged as if it were open, but with access=no. If they completely tore down the old bridge, and are building a new one, then tag it as if it were open, but with highway=construction and construction=* (* being whatever the highway tag will be when the bridge is completed). The main Mapnik and Osmarender renderers won't make it look specifically like a bridge, but people should get the idea. As far as the estimated reopening, I think someone suggested opening_date=* for that. Vid the Kid 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)