<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<li><div>It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit mention<br></div></li><li><div>is it OK to tag hazard that<br></div></li><li><div><br></div></li><li><div>- exists<br></div></li><li><div>- is unsigned<br></div></li><li><div>- government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is dysfunctional/missing like<br></div></li><li><div>in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher priorities - for example during war)<br></div></li><li><div><div><br></div></div></li><li><div><div>Currently it is implied that it is not taggable, it would be good to have it mentioned explicitly.<br></div></div></li><li><div><div><br></div></div></li><li><div><div>Why hazard:animal and hazard:species is needed instead of animal and species? <br></div></div></li><li><div><div><br></div></div></li><li><div><div>----------<br></div></div></li><li><div><div><br></div></div></li><li><div>The use of <span class="font" style="font-family:menlo,consolas,"courier new",monospace"><bdi style="white-space:nowrap"><a title="Key:hazard" class="" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">hazard</a></bdi>=<a title="Tag:hazard=rock slide (page does not exist)" class="" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:hazard%3Drock_slide&action=edit&redlink=1" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><bdi>rock_slide</bdi></a></span> is more popular than several alternatives, <br></div></li><li><div>which are essentially
describing the same thing: a hazard where rocks, earth, or mud might
fall from above.<br></div></li><li><div><br></div></li><li><div>There is a big difference between rock slide, failing rocks and landslide.<br></div></li><li><div><br></div></li><li><div>I do not thing that deprecation of failing_rocks and landslide is a good idea,<br></div></li><li><div>I would keep them (I have seen signposted sign about landslide exactly once,<br></div></li><li><div>many, many signs of failing rocks - tagging rock_slide for either of them would <br></div></li><li><div>be incorrect).<br></div></li><li><div><br></div></li><li><div>Nov 25, 2020, 14:12 by zelonewolf@gmail.com:<br></div></li><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous or dangerous features. This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have adopted the proposal with permission from the original author. Thanks to the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior to this RFC.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The key "hazard" has achieved over 28,000 usages, and it is proposed to formalize usage of the most popular values of this key while deprecating less-popular synonyms. In addition, this proposes to deprecate protect_class=16 in favor of the hazard key.<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard</a><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>