[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>
wrote:

> 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.
> Yves
>
> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201126/1ff76378/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list