[Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where
danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale rock slide.

Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard road
sign.

(difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...)

Disclaimer: I am from a relatively flat country, maybe this sign warns about
full scale rock slides elsewhere?

----

As far as I know such dangers are common in Asia, especially mountainous parts
such as Nepal. I wonder how this is signed (and is signed at all).

See for example second image on 
https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/26/landslides-and-roads-recent-examples/
or https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/20/hanyuan-county-1/
or other materials from that blog.


Dec 3, 2020, 18:14 by zelonewolf at gmail.com:

> Hello,
>
> I've made a number of updates to the "hazard" proposal [1] based on the input received.  Thanks to those that offered comment and feedback so far during this RFC.
>
> I request community help on resolving feedback on the proposed tag hazard=rock_slide and deprecation of three values of hazard: rockfall, falling_rocks, and landslide.  The feedback was that rock falls, rockslides and landslides are different and should not be conflated in a single value.  Indeed, geologically they are different; a "fall" implies material falling from a cliff while a "slide" implies material sliding down a slope.  Additionally "rock" versus "land" describes a different type of material that might fall or slide.
>
> However, in standard road signage, there is a single pictogram for all of these forms of falling/sliding material that almost universally depicts a steep slope with pieces of falling debris.  See the referenced wikipedia articles [2][3] in the row labelled "falling rocks or debris" for examples in many countries.
>
> In some cases, this pictogram is also combined with text that further specificies "landslide" [4] or signs might say in words only "rock slide area" or "slide area".  The "falling rocks or debris" sign is also commonly used by itself to generally indicate this category of hazard.  In these cases (the falling rocks/debris pictogram sign used by itself), my thinking was that a mapper should have a single tag that they can apply, without having to specifically determine the exact geological character of the rock/land fall/slide hazard.  Thus, I've proposed to adopt the most common variant "rock_slide" to cover all of these cases, which a mapper could use anytime they map a sign with that pictogram, and deprecate the others, in order to create consistent tagging.
>
> I request community feedback on this specific question of how to tag this type of hazard for cases of:
> (a) When the mapper observes the "falling rocks or debris" sign but is unsure of whether it is specifically a rock/land slide/fall
> (b) When the mapper observes the sign, and knows the specific geological type
> (c) When the mapper observes a sign with specific text that states "falling rocks", "rock fall", or "landslide"
>
> Do these distinctions need to be tagged differently, and if so, are there suggestions on how that tagging might be constructed?
>
> [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
> [2] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced_traffic_signs
> [3] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_signs
> [4] > https://www.pdsigns.ie/product/safety-construction-hazard-warning-risk-of-landslide-on-cliff-edge-sign/>  (note: commercial site)
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201203/e7b0583c/attachment-0001.htm>