Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 04:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that > nobody expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere? > No actual traffic lights, but how about a posted No Waiting zone? :-)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

sent from a phone > On 5. Dec 2020, at 22:34, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > Volker Schmidt: >> Hi, > >> In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the >> signing: >> * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like >> we do >>with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Volker Schmidt: Hi, In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the signing: * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like we do with speed limits I this it the best option. * by mapping the relative signs as nodes That

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Am Sa., 5. Dez. 2020 um 21:37 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Traffic lights triggered by avalanches! Is that close enough, Martin? > > > https://elearning.unipd.it/scuolaamv/pluginfile.php/19629/mod_resource/content/1/04_02%20difesa%20dalla%20valanghe.pdf > I knew you would deliver :)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Traffic lights triggered by avalanches! Is that close enough, Martin? https://elearning.unipd.it/scuolaamv/pluginfile.php/19629/mod_resource/content/1/04_02%20difesa%20dalla%20valanghe.pdf I remember I saw them for the first time in 1985 in the Val Zoldana, Provincia di Belluno (SP251), but had

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

I want to address the points that were raised on crossings. As we already have highway=crossing, I have resisted adding new hazard=* values for crossing hazards, as that is properly the domain of the highway=crossing tag. For golf cart crossing, there is already an established tag combination

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Le 5 décembre 2020 19:19:31 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > >you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that nobody >expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere? > >Cheers Martin They are no so rare, I remember one going down from La

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

The solution to the lack of official signs is to petition your local government to add the signs or pavement markings or some other visible warning of the hazard. This will have much more real-world impact than adding a tag to OpenStreetMap. And it will make it possible to verifiably add the tag

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

sent from a phone > On 5. Dec 2020, at 17:05, ael via Tagging wrote: > > Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton), for example. you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that nobody expected to even exist.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Hi, I have been following this proposal with interest. I often have tried to tag hazards, and not found a good ways of doing it. We are now compiling a long list of hazards, including golf players crossing the road, but I see some basic aspects which are not being addressed (unless I missed

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:48:27PM +, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > Up until around ten years ago, a minor road went past the end of the > runway at what passes for an airport. The planes could be so low on > approach to the runway that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

I pretty much learned to drive in the State of Montana, and they had a superbly simple method of road hazard warning. For every fatal accident, they would plant a post, and on the post would be one or more crosses corresponeding to the fatalities in that accident. ( Keep in mind for many years,

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

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 07:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > This will make it easier to fix problems with mappers who want to add > hazard=curve to every single curve on a long curvy road, or add very > subjective hazard features which cannot be confirmed or denied even when > visiting the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > They do not imply that you have to fear airplanes on the street, they > are meant to prepare you for low flying aircraft. > Up until around ten years ago, a minor road went past the end of the runway at what passes for an airport. The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

While hazard=yes is certainly in use (like barrier=yes and even amenity=yes), it shouldn't be included in the proposal. In every case it will be more helpful if users make up a new tag. If there is a sign warning of monkeys which are prone to steal tourist's purses, then

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

sent from a phone > On 4. Dec 2020, at 21:43, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Does that satisfy your concern? yes, very reasonable, maybe could add that unsigned hazards can not only be found in the developing world, but the probability of encountering them will raise the farther you move

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

Re: "However, in some cases, notably in the developing world, these types of hazards may be tagged even if unsigned." While this is certainly a true statement which represents the actual situation in OpenStreetMap, I think it isn't needed in the proposal. Mappers will always feel free to add

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

This was a concern of mine as well. I did not want someone micromapping every bend in a road with hazard=curve for example. The intent is for officially declared hazards rather than vague interpretations. However, I also recognize that, particularly in the developing world, formal signage or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

There's a few usages of hazard=golf_balls, which is more like what you're describing and actually a hazard. It seems a bit nebulous, but perhaps the sign could be mapped. That's different from a golf crossing, which is a place where golfers and golf carts would cross a road. I've already added

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

sent from a phone > On 4. Dec 2020, at 17:42, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > I am thinking this case (crossing golfers) is more of a highway=crossing > rather than a hazard? I think it is a warning that a golf ball might eventually hit your vehicle, and if you’re prepared you won’t be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

I am thinking this case (crossing golfers) is more of a highway=crossing rather than a hazard? There appear to be no existing values of hazard for indicating crossing golfers to lean on here. On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:23 AM Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > Brian M. Sperlongano: > > Niels, thanks

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Brian M. Sperlongano: Niels, thanks for the list. I found another Danish hazard Crossing golfers: https://hopcycling.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/L9720954.jpg -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

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

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

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

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

*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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

>Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 12:08:25 -0500 >From: "Brian M. Sperlongano" >To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" >    >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards >Message-ID:     >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

It looks like you're referring to this area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=40.3482=46.5377#map=10/40.3812/46.8347 It seems that this giant border-area polygon was removed recently as it's only rendered at lower zoom levels. If the precedent is that military conflict areas are mapped

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Niels, thanks for the list. I was able to find examples and existing tagging for most of the values you noted as missing, and I've updated the proposal to add them. I did already have a value listed dangerous intersection (hazard=dangerous_junction, 400 usages). The one you listed that is not

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On 27/11/2020 04:25, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Assuming that the boundary of that area is reasonably permanent, my first reaction is that this could be described by military=danger_area.  However, that tag requires landuse=military as the primary tag, which probably isn't correct here. On

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

På Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:11:25 -0500 I am missing values for: horse riding: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_47.png hazard:animal=horse should only be for wild horses Crossing bicyclists: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_45.png Slippery

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 14:28, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > Assuming that the boundary of that area is reasonably permanent, my first > reaction is that this could be described by military=danger_area. However, > that tag requires landuse=military as the primary tag, which probably isn't >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Assuming that the boundary of that area is reasonably permanent, my first reaction is that this could be described by military=danger_area. However, that tag requires landuse=military as the primary tag, which probably isn't correct here. On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Not wanting to create a bunfight, but just reading the news, & wondering if this sort of thing should be tagged as a hazardous area? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-27/ethiopia-to-launch-final-phase-of-offensive-in-tigray-region/12926606 Thanks Graeme

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 06:41, ael via Tagging wrote: > > There are a surprising number of abandoned open mineshafts in the far > West of England which are a hazard, if not an extreme hazard. But if it's already (presumably) tagged with =mineshaft (+ =abandoned?), does it also need to be tagged

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Sorry, just read further through the e-mail list & saw that this has already been covered Thanks Graeme On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 08:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > But if it's already (presumably) tagged with =mineshaft (+ =abandoned?), > does it also need to be tagged as a hazard? > >

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (animals)

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 16:40, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:25 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >>- Why hazard:animal and hazard:species is needed instead of animal >>and species? >> >> I initially had it as just

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

> > >- The use of hazard = >rock_slide > > >is more popular than several alternatives, >- which are essentially describing the same thing: a hazard

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (animals)

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:25 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >- Why hazard:animal and hazard:species is needed instead of animal and >species? > > I initially had it as just animal and species as you suggest. However, for hazards along a stretch of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

I knew when I started this that it would be impossible to address every single possible hazard that may exist in the world. I tried to curate a list of the most popular hazards that people were actually actually tagging with the 28,000 existing usages of the hazard key, and that I felt I was able

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards, if that's the consensus. I was trying to address anticipated concerns about tagging unverifiable things. For example, someone in a western country tagging a curve hazard on every instance of a bend in the road and not just the signed parts. On

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

And hazards for niche practices (climbing, whitewater sports, ski touring,...) that are actually mapped in OSM are not generally signposted or 'official'. Maybe we can't expect this proposal to cover them, but you can't prevent users to use the tag hazard to map them. Yves Le 26 novembre 2020

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >- It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have >explicit mention >- is it OK to tag hazard that >- >- - exists >- - is unsigned >- -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit mention is it OK to tag hazard that - exists - is unsigned - government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is dysfunctional/missing like in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 23:27, 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