[OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Sat Jan 11 20:37:12 UTC 2020

> On Jan 11, 2020, at 12:22 PM, Martin Trautmann via talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> and
> On 20-01-02 12:23, pangoSE wrote what they wrote.

To be clear, the hazards I'm hazily identifying are naturally-occurring or are human-made real-life hazards that can cause you real harm if you approach them and are not careful to avoid them, not "stay out of that neighborhood" kinds of "hazards."  Things like an area which is radioactive, has a "falling hazard" (such as a pit, though I think we have "adit" for mine shafts — and we do have natural=cliff, which I agree suffices for what it is) and other unusual hazards like places which have a propensity to be repeatedly struck by lightning (that's a weird one, and kind of controversial, I know).

As before, I doubt "hazard" or "no-go" will get more traction than it has (here and now), I simply make that clarification.


More information about the talk mailing list