[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
Brian M. Sperlongano
zelonewolf at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 14:11:25 UTC 2020
I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards, if that's the consensus. I
was trying to address anticipated concerns about tagging unverifiable
things. For example, someone in a western country tagging a curve hazard
on every instance of a bend in the road and not just the signed parts.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020, 8:06 AM Yves via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> And hazards for niche practices (climbing, whitewater sports, ski
> touring,...) that are actually mapped in OSM are not generally signposted
> or 'official'.
> Maybe we can't expect this proposal to cover them, but you can't prevent
> users to use the tag hazard to map them.
> Le 26 novembre 2020 10:10:45 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org>:
>>> - It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to
>>> have explicit mention
>>> - is it OK to tag hazard that
>>> - - exists
>>> - - 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)
>> +1. This may also depend on the context. The same kind of hazard on a
>> road may well be signposted, but not on a hiking trail in a forest.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging