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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Not all land slides are rock slides. Some are mostly silt or loamy soil, so
are often “mudslides”, e.g. in the Northwest Pacific coast of Canada and
the US:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oso_mudslide

So I would prefer “landslide” as a more general term.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> 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...)
>>
>
> Since we do have that luxury, and there is a valid reason for preferring
> terminology as actually signed, then we can adopt "hazard=falling_rocks"
> (53 usages) and deprecate "hazard=rockfall" (182 usages).  These are small
> enough numbers that there shouldn't be any harm in choosing the smaller one.
>
> Can we treat landslide and rock_slide as the same thing?  If so,
> "hazard=rock_slide" has 394 usages and "hazard=landslide" has 35 usages.
> In that case, I would propose to adopt the more popular "rock_slide" and
> deprecate "landslide" as duplicate.
>
> Would this address the concerns?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201203/375d16be/attachment.htm>