[Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

[John Willis]

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 1:15 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For start, traffic sign itself may be also mapped. It would also make
> clear that hazard (or other method to tag this) is based on something
> verifiable, not opinion of the mapper.

Sounds like a similar situation  to the advisory sign discussion (non-rule/law based signs giving information to motorists) 

Traffic_sign:advisory=carjacking
Coupled with whatever hazard=* you want to throw on it. 

(Or similar, I forget the exact tag syntax at the moment...)

I'm sure there are plenty of situations where "no stopping because of natural danger" exist. 

One of the roads up a volcano here (Kusatsu-Shirane) in Japan is surrounded by sulphur vents. There is an advisory to roll up windows and not to stop, to avoid the smell and possible asphyxiation (if there is a big burp of sulphur). 

It's not too much of a stretch to use it for a social danger *if* the signage actually exists.

If it is just your opinion, that is also debatable, as we do strive to get the local mapper's ground truth - but without a sign, that certainly is a big can of worms. 

With a sign - we're just mapping signs.

- theft of valuables (don't leave valuables in the car)
- car theft (lock your car!) 
- pickpockets / bag thieves  
- prison (no stopping for hitchhikers) 

Also, natural warning signs 
- dangerous animals (lions, bears, Pumas, snakes, etc) in rural/backcountry trailheads 
- land mines (certain countries)  
-tsunami zone (entering a low area) 
- turn car wheels to curb (very steep hill parking) 

These signs may not be necessary, but for micromappers who are mapping the vending machines' serial numbers (found in Tokyo), having a decent framework for advisory signs themselves to be mapped (regardless if they are rendered) should be considered. 

Javbw.