[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Niels Elgaard Larsen elgaard at agol.dk
Fri Nov 27 12:59:51 UTC 2020

På Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:11:25 -0500

I am missing values for:

horse riding:
hazard:animal=horse should only be for wild horses

Crossing bicyclists:

Slippery road:
How do we map "slippery when wet"? Or ice?

Loose rocks on the road:

Dangerous road edge:

low airplanes and helicopters:

Queue risk:

Dangerous intersections

"Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonewolf at gmail.com> skrev:
>I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards, if that's the
>consensus.  I was trying to address anticipated concerns about tagging
>unverifiable things.

It could be verified in other ways. For example official reports based
on statistics. Or newspaper articles on accidents caused by crossing
animals on a certain stretch of road.

> 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.

I agree. In fact there is not much point in tagging even the signed

The reason for those signs is that the driver cannot see road ahead or
that it is difficult to judge the sharpness from the perspective of a
But with a map it can be done. A data consumer is in a better position
to decide if turns are hazards. When using a navigation system, I can
look at the screen and judge if the next turn could be a problem.

I could also tell my navigation software which vehicle I am driving and
it could use that information together with my current position, my
actual speed and the data on the road ahead to decide if I should be

For the same reason there is also no reason to tag signed hazards for:


Steep inclines/declines:

level crossing without gates:

bridges that open:

Quays without guards: 

because all those can be inferred from other tags.

>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

More information about the Tagging mailing list