[Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

> Here are the ones that I think are worth considering:
>
>    - Opening or swing bridge ahead
>
> This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its various
sub-keys that describe different types of movable bridges.  There were no
existing usages I could find under the hazard key, and the case of a
movable bridge _ahead_ sounds like a router problem.

>
>    - Steep hill
>
> Covered by the approved key "incline"

>
>    - Trams crossing ahead
>    - Level crossing without barrier or gate
>    - Frail (or blind or disabled) pedestrians crossing
>
> These are all versions of highway=crossing.  I have deliberately not
defined any crossing hazards as I feel they belong as part of that key,
which has its own hierarchy for different types of hazards.  If
highway=crossing and hazard= should be comingled, I think that is a
separate discussion that should be had.  But, to keep this "clean", I'm
specifically excluding highway=crossing hazards from consideration in this
go.  The only almost-exception is hazard=animal_crossing which is
specifically NOT a highway=crossing.

>
>    - Pedestrians in road ahead [no sidewalk]
>
>  Already covered in the proposal with hazard=pedestrians

>
>    - Overhead electric cable
>
> Overhead powerline cables are already mapped, it seems that would be
sufficient to know that there is an overhead cable.  There is zero existing
usage that I can find under any tag value for indicating this type of
hazard beyond the geometry of a power line drawn over the road.  As such, I
would exclude this case from this pass as potentially
controversial/duplicative with existing tagging.

>
>    - Sharp deviation of route
>
> Already covered in the proposal as a hazard=turn.  I have not added
additional tagging to describe the sharpness of the turn because that fact
is already evident in the way geometry.

>
>    - Ice
>
> This is a good suggestion, and I will add hazard=ice which has a handful
of usages.  It is distinctly different from hazard=frost_heave and will
cover the various versions of "bridge freezes before roadway" and so
forth.

>
>    - Hidden dip
>
> Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent
feature?  I usually see these in relation to road construction.  Note that
speed dips are already covered under the key traffic_calming, so this would
have to describe a permanent, signed dangerous feature that wasn't put
there for traffic control reason.


> One not covered there is the warning that a route is unsuitable for long
> vehicles.  There are a few minor roads near me like that.  Drive a long
> vehicle along them and (at best) you have a long reverse or (at worst)
> you get stuck.
>

Since we have tags to describe the width of roads, and the ways making them
up have a geometry associated with them, it seems that this is something
that routers could simply calculate based on existing tagging.  In order to
avoid tags which might be controversial or redundant with other tagging, I
would not include this -- similar to a "narrow road" hazard which I have
chosen to exclude for the same reason.  I feel that these cases are
potentially more complex and deserve a separate consideration and/or
proposal.



> Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you
> have for minefields.  That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard
> 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded
> explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive,
> and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded).  In old money it
> would have been called "unexploded bomb."
>

Thanks!  This is not a sign I normally see on my daily commute :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201209/45e73670/attachment-0001.htm>