[Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Volker,

Thanks for the comments!  For the specific linked case (winding road for
74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal -
hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74
consecutive miles, that I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth
of ways in this way.

With regard to perceived hazards, and degrees of hazards, these are clearly
interesting and complex topics.  I don't know how to address them, but I
like that you're breaking down the problem in a systematic way.  I'm
intrigued and interested in hearing more and/or collaborating on the
topic.  I think we would need to examine a handful of examples to really
understand the space.

That said, I don't think the lack of a generalized approach towards
signed/unsigned/graded hazards should prevent us from formalizing the
30,000 usages of the hazard key.  Mappers have "voted with their tagging"
and we should respect that unless there is a strong reason not to.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:30 PM Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:

> Brian,
> I am trying to put order in this also in  my own mind.
> I think we should have an approach which is already clearly structured
> towards two things
> A the difference between
> - signposted hazards
> - unsigned hazards perceived by the mappers
> B for hazards that may have different degrees of hazardness (like the
> difficulty classes of hiking paths, MTB tracks, rapids,...)
> we should have solutions that allow a basic tagging plus the option of
> classes of hazardness for advanced mappers
>
> This approach should be put in the hazard proposal, even if at the moment
> the proposal only covers signposted hazards.
>
> Volker
>
> PS be prepared: how do we tag a hazard like this.
> <https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Ff8%2F1f%2F81%2Ff81f81a46c423165f1ebf46dd63c9d64.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.se%2Fpin%2F446208275551301611%2F&tbnid=Lf3Kf2ucFsOb3M&vet=12ahUKEwifs6ryz9PtAhUO16QKHZ2-AjEQMygAegQIARAu..i&docid=EcY5sJtmk2sheM&w=1200&h=1050&itg=1&q=california%20highway%201%20curves%20for%20next%2074%20miles&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwifs6ryz9PtAhUO16QKHZ2-AjEQMygAegQIARAu>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 23:13, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As the maintainer of the current hazard proposal - I don't really have
>> strong opinions about signed versus unsigned hazards, though I know others
>> do.  However, signed hazards seem to be something that we all agree should
>> be tagged, and this proposal is attempting to approve the collection of
>> usages that we all agree on.  I knew going in that the topic was too big to
>> be able to address every possible hazard that someone might want to tag but
>> we have to start somewhere.
>>
>> So --- consider this proposal a starting point, not the end of the story!
>>
>> There is no reason why hazard tagging can't be expanded from this current
>> base, and since we have free tagging, there is nothing stopping any mapper
>> from either simply inventing their own new hazard tag values or other
>> usages for things not covered, or offering new proposals to expand the
>> usage.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM ael via Tagging <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>>> > I see this subject directly related to the "hazard" discussion in the
>>> sense
>>> > that I suggested to clearly define the difference between signposted
>>> > hazards/dangers/warnings and un-signed such situations that are
>>> observable
>>> > on the ground, and therefore are subject also to personal judgement.
>>> With
>>> > other words, beyond the question of how to map it, there is also the
>>> > question of what is a rapid or any other hazard.
>>>
>>> I strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
>>> proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
>>> are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
>>> tags.
>>>
>>> This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
>>> hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
>>> although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
>>> not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify.
>>>
>>> ael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201216/f9f3a27e/attachment.htm>