[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (mine shaft)

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 21:01:09 UTC 2020


On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:41 PM ael via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:11:25AM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> > I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards
>
> There are a surprising number of abandoned open mineshafts in the far
> West of England which are a hazard, if not an extreme hazard. Not all
> of these are signed or fenced. You might have noticed some of them when you
> trawled through the existing usage.
>
> It would be absurd to require such cases to be "signed": those are the
> least hazardous by virtual of the signage.


Ok, I'm convinced that unsigned hazards are acceptable to be signed!

In the case of open mineshafts, there is already an approved tag
man_made=mineshaft with 10,000 usage (and a similar de facto tag for
horizontal shafts, man_made=adit with 12,000 usages).  As a result, the
hazard key hasn't really been used for this -- there is a
hazard=open_mineshaft with 5 usages, and a single use of hazard=mineshaft.
I'm not sure if all mine shafts are hazardous or only some of them, but in
any case, I would think that man_made=mineshaft + hazard=yes would make
more sense than a a mineshaft-specific value.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201126/d0bdd84c/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list