[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (animals)

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 16:50:40 UTC 2020

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 16:40, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:25 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>    - Why hazard:animal and hazard:species is needed instead of animal
>>    and species?
>> I initially had it as just animal and species as you suggest.  However,
> for hazards along a stretch of road (for example, "moose crossing next 5
> miles"), you would end up tagging a way with animal=moose.  This creates
> ambiguity in the tagging as to whether the road is *for* moose or
> contains a *moose hazard*.  Thus, I invented hazard:animal to explicitly
> draw a distinction.

Good point.  A section of way is a moose hazard because a moose might wander
into the road and damage your car.  A different section of way is a child
because a child might wander into the road and damage your car.

There was me thinking that the hazard was to the child and that the warnings
should be made clear to the child, but the hazard is to the car and and
killed are just more roadkill to be disposed of.

More seriously, I don't think the children crossing case should be handled
same way.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201126/f0c82b6d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list