Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (frost heave?)

[Jez Nicholson]

As long as your frost heave conforms to verifiability guidelines by being
either:
a) signposted (possibly)
b) fenced off, with a sign (no, because it's in the road)
c) a government-declared hazardous area (no)

I'm concerned that this hazard tagging proposal will encourage subjective
tagging over what constitutes a 'hazard'.


On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:49 PM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> I'd think that frost heaves (which are seasonal and conditions-based)
> versus permanent bumps are different.  If there aren't objections, I'd
> propose both a hazard=bump (which has a few trace uses) and a new value
> hazard=frost_heave to cover frost heaves specifically.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:37 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>> *hazard=frost_heave, hazard=bump?*
>>
>> One of the common road hazards I encounter and would like to tag are
>> large frost heaves that occur at consistent locations every year. A few
>> roads in my region like VT-17 and NY-8 have poor roadbeds and get damaged
>> by frost heaves the first winter after repaving. These roads often have
>> several hundred yards of nice smooth and fresh pavement, then 2"-8" frost
>> heaves with cracks that reappear in the same places year after year.
>>
>> Some examples:
>>
>>- VT-17: section A
>>, section B
>> (with
>>"BUMP" sign), section C
>>
>>- NY-8: section A
>>
>> ,
>>section B
>>
>> 
>>
>> This has been previously mentioned in an OSMUS Slack thread
>>  in regard
>> to smoothness=*, but tagging particularly bad (and often permanent)
>> heaves may be preferable as other sections of the roadway may be smooth and
>> freshly paved.
>>
>> Signage on these tends to be inconsistent, often using phrasing like
>> "BUMP", "CAUTION: FROST HEAVE", "FROST HEAVE AHEAD", or other similar
>> phrases. In some locations the signs are permanently mounted, while other
>> locations get folding signage. As these are point features with varying
>> placement of signage, I would suggest mapping them as nodes on a roadway at
>> the heave position with something like hazard=frost_heave.
>> Alternatively, hazard=bump may be applicable to other situations
>> worldwide for dangerous bumps caused by something other than freeze/thaw
>> cycles.
>>
>> Best,
>> Adam
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <
>> zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous
>>> or dangerous features.  This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
>>> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author.  Thanks to
>>> the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior
>>> to this RFC.
>>>
>>> The key "hazard" has achieved over 28,000 usages, and it is proposed to
>>> formalize usage of the most popular values of this key while deprecating
>>> less-popular synonyms.  In addition, this proposes to deprecate
>>> protect_class=16 in favor of the hazard key.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (frost heave?)

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I'd think that frost heaves (which are seasonal and conditions-based)
versus permanent bumps are different.  If there aren't objections, I'd
propose both a hazard=bump (which has a few trace uses) and a new value
hazard=frost_heave to cover frost heaves specifically.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:37 PM Adam Franco  wrote:

> *hazard=frost_heave, hazard=bump?*
>
> One of the common road hazards I encounter and would like to tag are large
> frost heaves that occur at consistent locations every year. A few roads in
> my region like VT-17 and NY-8 have poor roadbeds and get damaged by frost
> heaves the first winter after repaving. These roads often have several
> hundred yards of nice smooth and fresh pavement, then 2"-8" frost heaves
> with cracks that reappear in the same places year after year.
>
> Some examples:
>
>- VT-17: section A
>, section B
> (with "BUMP"
>sign), section C
>
>- NY-8: section A
>
> ,
>section B
>
> 
>
> This has been previously mentioned in an OSMUS Slack thread
>  in regard
> to smoothness=*, but tagging particularly bad (and often permanent)
> heaves may be preferable as other sections of the roadway may be smooth and
> freshly paved.
>
> Signage on these tends to be inconsistent, often using phrasing like
> "BUMP", "CAUTION: FROST HEAVE", "FROST HEAVE AHEAD", or other similar
> phrases. In some locations the signs are permanently mounted, while other
> locations get folding signage. As these are point features with varying
> placement of signage, I would suggest mapping them as nodes on a roadway at
> the heave position with something like hazard=frost_heave. Alternatively,
> hazard=bump may be applicable to other situations worldwide for dangerous
> bumps caused by something other than freeze/thaw cycles.
>
> Best,
> Adam
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous
>> or dangerous features.  This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
>> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author.  Thanks to
>> the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior
>> to this RFC.
>>
>> The key "hazard" has achieved over 28,000 usages, and it is proposed to
>> formalize usage of the most popular values of this key while deprecating
>> less-popular synonyms.  In addition, this proposes to deprecate
>> protect_class=16 in favor of the hazard key.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (frost heave?)

[Adam Franco]

*hazard=frost_heave, hazard=bump?*

One of the common road hazards I encounter and would like to tag are large
frost heaves that occur at consistent locations every year. A few roads in
my region like VT-17 and NY-8 have poor roadbeds and get damaged by frost
heaves the first winter after repaving. These roads often have several
hundred yards of nice smooth and fresh pavement, then 2"-8" frost heaves
with cracks that reappear in the same places year after year.

Some examples:

   - VT-17: section A
   , section B
    (with "BUMP"
   sign), section C
   
   - NY-8: section A
   
,
   section B
   


This has been previously mentioned in an OSMUS Slack thread
 in regard to
smoothness=*, but tagging particularly bad (and often permanent) heaves may
be preferable as other sections of the roadway may be smooth and freshly
paved.

Signage on these tends to be inconsistent, often using phrasing like
"BUMP", "CAUTION: FROST HEAVE", "FROST HEAVE AHEAD", or other similar
phrases. In some locations the signs are permanently mounted, while other
locations get folding signage. As these are point features with varying
placement of signage, I would suggest mapping them as nodes on a roadway at
the heave position with something like hazard=frost_heave. Alternatively,
hazard=bump may be applicable to other situations worldwide for dangerous
bumps caused by something other than freeze/thaw cycles.

Best,
Adam

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:27 AM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous
> or dangerous features.  This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author.  Thanks to
> the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior
> to this RFC.
>
> The key "hazard" has achieved over 28,000 usages, and it is proposed to
> formalize usage of the most popular values of this key while deprecating
> less-popular synonyms.  In addition, this proposes to deprecate
> protect_class=16 in favor of the hazard key.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging