[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Fri Nov 27 17:08:25 UTC 2020


Niels, thanks for the list.

I was able to find examples and existing tagging for most of the values you
noted as missing, and I've updated the proposal to add them.  I did already
have a value listed dangerous intersection (hazard=dangerous_junction, 400
usages).

The one you listed that is not clear is the one that you describe as
"dangerous road edge".  The linked sign looks more like a "soft verge" or
"soft shoulder" sign, and there are no existing tag values that I can find
for this type of hazard.  There is a small number of usages of
hazard=uneven_road, however that sign usually looks something like this:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Traffic_sign#/media/File:1.16_Russian_road_sign.svg

There is also a small usage of hazard=cliff, which has particularly fun
signs, notably:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_road_sign_W_160.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Don%27t_fall_off_the_Cliff!_(16841837743).jpg

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 8:06 AM Niels Elgaard Larsen <elgaard at agol.dk>
wrote:

> På Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:11:25 -0500
>
>
> I am missing values for:
>
> horse riding:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_47.png
> hazard:animal=horse should only be for wild horses
>
> Crossing bicyclists:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_45.png
>
> Slippery road:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_50.png
> How do we map "slippery when wet"? Or ice?
>
> Loose rocks on the road:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_52.PNG
>
> Dangerous road edge:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_54.png
>
> low airplanes and helicopters:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_82.png
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_83.png
>
> Queue risk:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_44.png
>
> Dangerous intersections
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_85.png
>
> "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
> parts.
>
> 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
> car.
> 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
> alerted.
>
> For the same reason there is also no reason to tag signed hazards for:
>
> Tunnels:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_68.png
>
> Steep inclines/declines:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_69.png
>
> level crossing without gates:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_71.png
>
> bridges that open:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_79.png
>
> Quays without guards:
> https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_80.png
>
> 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
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201127/e4220e03/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list