<div dir="ltr"><div>As long as your frost heave conforms to verifiability guidelines by being either:</div><div>a) signposted (possibly)</div><div>b) fenced off, with a sign (no, because it's in the road)</div><div>c) a government-declared hazardous area (no)</div><div><br></div>I'm concerned that this hazard tagging proposal will encourage subjective tagging over what constitutes a 'hazard'.<div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:49 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <<a href="mailto:zelonewolf@gmail.com">zelonewolf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I'd think that frost heaves (which are seasonal and conditions-based) versus permanent bumps are different. If there aren't objections, I'd propose both a hazard=bump (which has a few trace uses) and a new value hazard=frost_heave to cover frost heaves specifically.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:37 PM Adam Franco <<a href="mailto:adamfranco@gmail.com" target="_blank">adamfranco@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p><b><span style="font-family:monospace">hazard=frost_heave</span>, <span style="font-family:monospace">hazard=bump</span>?</b><br></p><p>One of the common road hazards I encounter and would like to tag are
large frost heaves that occur at consistent locations every year. A few
roads in my region like VT-17 and NY-8 have poor roadbeds and get
damaged by frost heaves the first winter after repaving. These roads
often have several hundred yards of nice smooth and fresh pavement, then
2"-8" frost heaves with cracks that reappear in the same places year
after year.
</p><p>Some examples:
</p>
<ul><li>VT-17: <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Nisd3iuj_bCdnuSwVBh5zA" target="_blank">section A</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/O-kqJL5OPJI-_RVor2rv4A" target="_blank">section B</a> (with "BUMP" sign), <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/MzW49dK2S78l2ewhhpg5PQ" target="_blank">section C</a></li><li>NY-8: <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5567706,-74.120767,3a,75y,60.66h,62.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8wGqO4YlGLPO2JfLpTG7ug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656" target="_blank">section A</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5548342,-74.1233648,3a,75y,41.82h,60.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWntAQT_Hwb2BVYwM5shNRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656" target="_blank">section B</a></li></ul>
<p>This has been previously mentioned in <a rel="nofollow" href="https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1584560161247300" target="_blank">an OSMUS Slack thread</a> in regard to <code>smoothness=*</code>, but tagging particularly bad (and often permanent) heaves may be preferable as other sections of the roadway may be smooth and freshly paved.
</p><p>Signage on these tends to be inconsistent, often using phrasing
like "BUMP", "CAUTION: FROST HEAVE", "FROST HEAVE AHEAD", or other
similar phrases. In some locations the signs are permanently mounted,
while other locations get folding signage. As these are point features
with varying placement of signage, I would suggest mapping them as nodes
on a roadway at the heave position with something like <code>hazard=frost_heave</code>. Alternatively, <code>hazard=bump</code> may be applicable to other situations worldwide for dangerous bumps caused by something other than freeze/thaw cycles.<br></p><p>Best,<br>Adam<br></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <<a href="mailto:zelonewolf@gmail.com" target="_blank">zelonewolf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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><br>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><br><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard</a><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>