Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (mine shaft)
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 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@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@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 (mine shaft)
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 > 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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (mine shaft)
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 21:56, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: I'm not sure if all mine shafts are hazardous or only some of them, but in > any case, > If the mineshaft is capped in some way, such as a grill, and the cap cannot be removed without special tools, it's probably safe. If the mineshaft has a sturdy fence preventing access, it's probably safe. If you can just wander along and fall down it without realizing it was there, it's probably not safe. I suspect the last of those three is the type ael was thinking of. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (mine shaft)
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:41 PM ael via Tagging 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). 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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
