[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (frost heave?)

Adam Franco adamfranco at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 19:34:33 UTC 2020


*hazard=frost_heave, hazard=bump?*

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.

Some examples:

   - VT-17: section A
   <https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Nisd3iuj_bCdnuSwVBh5zA>, section B
   <https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/O-kqJL5OPJI-_RVor2rv4A> (with "BUMP"
   sign), section C
   <https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/MzW49dK2S78l2ewhhpg5PQ>
   - NY-8: section A
   <https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5567706,-74.120767,3a,75y,60.66h,62.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8wGqO4YlGLPO2JfLpTG7ug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656>,
   section B
   <https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5548342,-74.1233648,3a,75y,41.82h,60.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWntAQT_Hwb2BVYwM5shNRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656>

This has been previously mentioned in an OSMUS Slack thread
<https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1584560161247300> in regard to
smoothness=*, but tagging particularly bad (and often permanent) heaves may
be preferable as other sections of the roadway may be smooth and freshly
paved.

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 hazard=frost_heave. Alternatively,
hazard=bump may be applicable to other situations worldwide for dangerous
bumps caused by something other than freeze/thaw cycles.

Best,
Adam

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201203/14bf1237/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list