Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (rock slide etc)

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

It looks like the vast majority of the uses of hazard=erosion is in
Bolivia, where it appears (from overhead imagery) to be used to tag
locations where these dirt roads are near or intersected by intermittent
streams which tend to wash the road out.  Often they are combined with
ford=yes when the stream actually crosses the road.  That seems like it
could be a reasonable thing to tag, and not at all like the various
"falling rocks/landslide/rockslide" variants which are all versions of
"land falling from above".

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 17:48 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>
>>  This is good feedback, and I would potentially toss another into the
>> mix: hazard=erosion which has about 300 tags.  Do we think these four tags
>> (rock_slide, falling_rocks, landslide, erosion) represent four distinct and
>> separate things that are properly tagged separately?
>>
>>
>
> I would see erosion as the parent category for all of the other 3,
> possibly too generic to get an idea what particularly is happening there.
> I'd rather deprecate it than encourage its use.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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 (rock slide etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 17:48 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:

>  This is good feedback, and I would potentially toss another into the mix:
> hazard=erosion which has about 300 tags.  Do we think these four tags
> (rock_slide, falling_rocks, landslide, erosion) represent four distinct and
> separate things that are properly tagged separately?
>
>

I would see erosion as the parent category for all of the other 3, possibly
too generic to get an idea what particularly is happening there. I'd rather
deprecate it than encourage its use.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (rock slide etc)

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

>
>
>- The use of hazard =
>rock_slide
>
> 
>is more popular than several alternatives,
>- which are essentially describing the same thing: a hazard where
>rocks, earth, or mud might fall from above.
>-
>- There is a big difference between rock slide, failing rocks and
>landslide.
>-
>- I do not thing that deprecation of failing_rocks and landslide is a
>good idea,
>- I would keep them (I have seen signposted sign about landslide
>exactly once,
>- many, many signs of failing rocks - tagging rock_slide for either of
>them would
>- be incorrect).
>
>  This is good feedback, and I would potentially toss another into the mix:
hazard=erosion which has about 300 tags.  Do we think these four tags
(rock_slide, falling_rocks, landslide, erosion) represent four distinct and
separate things that are properly tagged separately?  I can see erosion
being "the ground may fall from under you at the cliff's edge" but the
others sounded like "the ground may fall from above".

The signs that I have found for landslide look exactly the same,
pictorally, as falling rocks, although I have found some with the actual
words "landslide".  It would be helpful someone can offer this flat-lander
examples where there are clear signage differences between these, or offer
clear definition differences between these values - especially if we go in
the direction of tagging unsigned hazards also.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging