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

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Fri Nov 27 17:25:36 UTC 2020


It seems to me that there is a clear case for there being both hazardous
and non-hazardous examples of man_made=mineshaft.  The question is how to
tag the ones that are hazardous.

I think the right answer is simply man_made=mineshaft + hazard=yes.  If we
were to approve hazard=open_mineshaft, you create ambiguity as to whether a
mappers could tag ONLY hazard=open_mineshaft and omit the
man_made=mineshaft, which is not desirable.  The hazard=yes tag is intended
to mark features that are already properly described by other tagging, but
indicate that it is also hazardous.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 8:38 AM ael via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 04:01:09PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> > 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).
>
> A mineshaft is not a hazard if it is properly protected or capped or
> whatever. So there is no need for a hazard tag in the majority of cases.
>
> 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.
>
> Well, that is better than nothing, but I don't see why a more specific
> value is not useful. The hazard might be toxic effluent coming out of
> a (probably disused) mineshaft. There are even cases where there can be
> toxic fumes as the result of bacterial activity.
>
> For back ground, many of the open mineshafts in Cornwall come from the
> long (even pre-historic) undocumented mining history. Many old shafts
> were capped with timber supports that have since rotted away and shafts
> suddenly appear unexpectedly. Other shafts are covered in undergrowth
> and may have never been capped. Pets and people are regularly rescued
> from such places.
>
> Adits are normally much less hazardous by virtue of being approximately
> horizontal. Of course, if an inexperienced person chooses to enter then
> they may well be exposed to many hazards, and maybe that could be tagged
> as well, but apart from perhaps the risk of  rock fall/collapse, I would
> think tagging underground features is at least problematic in OSM.
>
> ael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201127/2c93a099/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list