[Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Dec 11 02:03:43 UTC 2016
On 22-Nov-16 01:06 AM, Ralph Dell wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frederik at remote.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 6:39 PM
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas
> On 11/17/2016 08:42 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I don't think it's appropriate to put into the main toolchain or map
>> data in itself; would be better off as your own specialized mashup
>> keeping in mind that enormous can of worms...
> I agree; there are lots of other interesting things that might be useful for routing, for example how likely it is to step into dog poo, how rainy the weather is in an area, how loud during rush hour or how dark at night; how accident-prone an intersection or how beautiful the landscape. Some of these are clearly non objective, others can be pseudo-objective like the crime figures but they'll often be biased, or not comparable across jurisdictions or even cities... I think adding any of this to OSM would move us away from being a database of easily observable facts, into the realm where people will fight endlessly about what the facts really are.
> Let's not go there. Let's stick to "if two people cannot agree what to put in OSM, let them meet at the place in question, see things with their own eyes, and settle the argument". Anything that cannot be resolved that way (or, by extension, through a photo or sending someone else to go and look) will only cause trouble.
> For all the tagging that can be done, dangerous or similar is just a terrible idea.
I would not compare 'dangerous areas' to how dark it gets nor how dirty ...
Such a terrible idea ... just might save lives.
More information about the Tagging