[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Konfrare Albert]

Hi!

We have taken a few days of discussion with key *«Obstacle»* (it derives
from «Difficult_Passability»... I have tried to answer all questions and I
have been added the proposals. I apologize if in any case it has not been:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle

Do you think that something isn't right or need more revisions? There are
some inconsistencies? More suggestions or doubts?
I think that the page needs to be cleaned, but all seems me important...
Any suggestions?

Thanks a lot! (and thanks for the comments received)

ALBERT


2012/10/14 Konfrare Albert <lakonfrariadelavila at gmail.com>

> Hi John!
>
> I like the problem that you proposed ;)
>
> I'm thinking in a very hard condition...
> I propose different solutions:
>
>    1. First, you must evaluate the obstacles. Probably one will be better
>    for pass. For example, the heap permites the pass to pedestrians but the
>    hole is difficult to cross it. More landslides could be occured. In this
>    case I propose to use:
>       - NODE or WAY with tags:
>    - obstacle=hole
>          - obstacle:bicycle=heap
>          - hazard_prone=yes
>          - hazard_type=landslide
>          - (optionally) obstacle_description: Landslide with heaps and
>          holes, and more landslides risk.
>       2. Other option (not the best) would be use two nodes (In this
>    example, I use the generic «obstacle», that represents impediment for
>    pedestrians). The nodes must be over the highway, therefore one will be
>    first and the other last:
>       - 1st NODE with tags:
>          - obstacle=hole
>       - 2n NODE with tags:
>          - obstacle=heap
>       - Chunk of way affected:
>          - hazard_prone=yes
>          - hazard_type=landslide
>       3. Other option (the bad, for me) could be:
>       - NODE or WAY with tags:
>          - obstacle=yes
>          - obstacle_description= Landslide with heaps and holes, and more
>          landslides risk.
>          - hazard_prone=yes
>          - hazard_type=landslide
>
> If there isn't risk of more landslides, you must omit the «hazard» tags.
>
> If only there is risk of landslide that not occured, there aren't
> objective obstacles in the trail, only a warning. In this case, I propose
> to use:
>
>    - NODE or WAY with the tags:
>       - hazard_prone=yes
>       - hazard_type=landslide
>
> I hope I have answered your question ;)
> Thanks and regards!
>
> PD: This mail will be sticked to the discussion page.
>
> ALBERT
>
>
> 2012/10/14 John F. Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Would the same landslide tag be used both where part of the hill above
>> the road had slid into the road, and where part of the road had slid
>> downhill, leaving a hole?
>>
>> Also, how would you tag a point where cracks had started to appear, but
>> the full-scale landslide hadn't happened yet?
>> --
>> John F. Eldredge --  john at jfeldredge.com
>> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than
>> not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *KONFRARE ALBERT*
> La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma
> WEB:            http://www.konfraria.org
> TWITTER:     http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria
> FACEBOOK:
> http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/100001918952076
>
>
>


-- 
*KONFRARE ALBERT*
La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma
WEB:            http://www.konfraria.org
TWITTER:     http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria
FACEBOOK:
http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/100001918952076
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20121017/472eda0b/attachment.html>