[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Thu Nov 26 07:18:29 UTC 2020
It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit mention
is it OK to tag hazard that
- is unsigned
- government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is dysfunctional/missing like
in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher priorities - for example during war)
Currently it is implied that it is not taggable, it would be good to have it mentioned explicitly.
Why hazard:animal and hazard:species is needed instead of animal and species?
The use of hazard <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard>=rock_slide <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:hazard%3Drock_slide&action=edit&redlink=1> is more popular than several alternatives,
which are essentially describing the same thing: a hazard where rocks, earth, or mud might fall from above.
There is a big difference between rock slide, failing rocks and landslide.
I do not thing that deprecation of failing_rocks and landslide is a good idea,
I would keep them (I have seen signposted sign about landslide exactly once,
many, many signs of failing rocks - tagging rock_slide for either of them would
Nov 25, 2020, 14:12 by zelonewolf at gmail.com:
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging