[OSM-talk] no-go-areas

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Mon Jan 6 07:29:01 UTC 2020

On Jan 5, 2020, at 9:48 PM, Julien djakk <djakk.geographie at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello ! For this kind of tagging, which is as subjective as the highway=secondary, there should be a consensus of local mappers. 
> This kind of areas could be tagged as “you need to know the area to be safe among locals” :-)

I listen to this as potentially reasonable, but I am left with the (obvious?) question:  what, exactly, is the specific hazard?  Is it characterizable, identifiable?  Is there a formal border around it?  Does everybody agree?  All of those seem difficult "to be (true) simultaneously" (as I understand what is meant when somebody suggests "avoid that area because of, or unless..."), so I fall on the side of "if no identifiable hazard, then no specific tag."  In short, I think we agree:  too subjective.  Even WITH a consensus of local mappers, I don't believe it stands tall enough unless it rises to "true" for all three of those questions.  And likely some more I haven't typed here, too.  (Others might).

Specific hazards, that are characterizable, identifiable, confined to a well-defined area and widely agreed upon?  Yes, Earth likely has some of those.  A node tagged hazard=* might work well.  This feels like a rough sketch only (still) despite getting shot down repeatedly as an unfocused or wholly wrong idea.


More information about the talk mailing list