Re: [Tagging] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
I think that they generically belong to Proposed features/hazardhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard of which the article in the discussion is very eloquent regarding the wide scope or that tag. I am surprised that this proposition is 6½ years old and that taggers have been tagging that much time without much concern with what it contains or can be extended to (and taggers, who seem more interested in adding new features than readjusting what was done, will probably rarely come back to add hazards). In particular, I have started tagging speed limits and I was perfectly astounded that absolutely no 30 km/h limit tagged so far indicates school/children safety. 30 km/h limits are often of that kind however and they are important to know as a child can burst from between two parked cars. I have slightly amended hazard=school_zone, especially to cover a crossing in that zone. What all proposed keys (trafficability, traffic_issue, roadnote, hazard) have in common is that we wish to alert people about something important about a given road. But why only roads? So why not a more generic tag to alert people about all sorts of problems? For example a beach where your leg may become shark's breakfast if your are not careful: natural=beach alert=text alert:text:en=Risk of shark attack alert:severity=danger Real-life example: Boa Viagem beach in Recife, Brazil. Have a look at the signpost: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-19720455 here the idea of alert=text would be to make explicit that this particular alert is not yet covered by any established key-value. For well defined alerts one could use pre-defined keys alert=school_zone alert:severity=hazard The pre-defined keys could have implicit alert:severity levels, so for example alert=school_zone could implicitly be alert:severity=hazard which would require then only one tag alert=school_zone The use of the word alert would make the action clear to renderers and routers: they have to alert the user in some way. cheers Gerald ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
2014/1/17 Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com But why only roads? So why not a more generic tag to alert people about all sorts of problems? Oh please restrict that to official warnings! I can already see thousands of hazard tags of concerned citizens warning me about every ditch in the road, cold weather in the mountains, darkness at night, passages that are slightly to small for THEIR car, explicit grafiti content on their favorite bus stop I really don't want to see OSM filled with their personal commented edition of the world. So if you think that the pebbles on the beach are a bit to pointy for bare feet - go to tripadvisor If there is a warning sign about undercurrents or shark attacks - OSM welcomes your addition. my ranty 2 cents, Chaos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
2014/1/17 Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com But why only roads? So why not a more generic tag to alert people about all sorts of problems? Oh please restrict that to official warnings! I can already see thousands of hazard tags of The shark attacks in Recife are alerted by official signs. I really don't want to see OSM filled with their personal commented edition of the world. I agree that this sort of thing may happen. Actually, I think this will happen as in fact it already does happen all the time. Almost everyday I see people changing highway priorities because they didn't like the colour in the map. The other day there was a fierce debate in Talk-BR about excessive numbers of tertiary in a certain city, which turned out to be mainly a problem of the map not looking very nice. However, this is not a problem of tagging. This is a problem of the over-permissive general structure of OSM which allows everyone to do whatever they want without a minimal supervision. (No flames here, thank you) Eventually this culture will need to change if one wishes ensure minimal standards of quality to the maps and to avoid the sort of things you fear may happen. Wikipedia had to go through this painful processhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829122.200-free-for-all-lifting-the-lid-on-a-wikipedia-crisis.html#.Utkn8ZCJCT0and so one day will OSM. With things being as they are, I am willing to cope with this noise and not have my leg bitten of by a shark. cheers Gerald ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com wrote: 2014/1/17 Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com But why only roads? So why not a more generic tag to alert people about all sorts of problems? Oh please restrict that to official warnings! I can already see thousands of hazard tags of concerned citizens warning me about every ditch in the road, cold weather in the mountains, darkness at night, passages that are slightly to small for THEIR car, explicit grafiti content on their favorite bus stop I really don't want to see OSM filled with their personal commented edition of the world. So if you think that the pebbles on the beach are a bit to pointy for bare feet - go to tripadvisor If there is a warning sign about undercurrents or shark attacks - OSM welcomes your addition. my ranty 2 cents, Chaos ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Some years ago, I traveled through a county in eastern Kentucky, in the Appalachian Mountains region, where there were a great many landslides affecting the highway. I don't know whether the soil type was to blame, but every mile or two there would be a place where either one lane of the two-lane highway would be partially blocked by a slide, one lane showed signs of subsidence, or one lane was partially or completely missing, having slid down the mountainside. Only about one-third of the slides had official warning signs. I would argue that this whole stretch of highway needed to be tagged as having a high risk of landslides, rather than only tagging the places that had already slid, since the latter would be perpetually out of date. No official signs stated risk of landslides -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
For something other than official warnings, this seems like something that would be best served by a potential future OpenLiveTraffic service (that could potentially, say, display average travel speeds per way of other users over the last hour, and reported transient problems like bad traffic, speed trap, accidents, etc) On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:59 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2014-01-13 14:53, Pieren wrote : On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com bgno2...@gmail.com wrote: The information which people gave me about the mentioned 20km long road was: Yes you can use the road with a regular car if it doesn't rain. I think it is practicable to tag that information into OSM. How would you tag that based on physical models? I agree with you. But there is currently nothing formally adopted for such access conditions based on weather. Searching the wiki, I found these proposals: - surface=all_weather ([1]) but the values should be reworked - dry_weather_only=yes/no ([2]) - the conditional access restrictions ([3]) (but this is more legal with traffic signs) - see all the pages on specific road tagging per countries ([4]) - and how other countries handle the question you raise. For instance, Australia ([5]) They are maybe other ideas. What you need is find the best one and use it. Or if you want that the community (and the renderers styles maintainers) adopt it as well, start a vote process and explain how important it is in your country. I think that those road conditions are akin to danger of flooding. I think that they generically belong to Proposed features/hazardhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard of which the article in the discussion is very eloquent regarding the wide scope or that tag. I am surprised that this proposition is 6½ years old and that taggers have been tagging that much time without much concern with what it contains or can be extended to (and taggers, who seem more interested in adding new features than readjusting what was done, will probably rarely come back to add hazards). In particular, I have started tagging speed limits and I was perfectly astounded that absolutely no 30 km/h limit tagged so far indicates school/children safety. 30 km/h limits are often of that kind however and they are important to know as a child can burst from between two parked cars. I have slightly amended hazard=school_zone, especially to cover a crossing in that zone. I suggest that the discussion is ripe and that a vote be started at least for children hazards. Cheers, André. ___ 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] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
2014/1/17 Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com But why only roads? So why not a more generic tag to alert people about all sorts of problems? For example a beach where your leg may become shark's breakfast if your are not careful: natural=beach alert=text alert:text:en=Risk of shark attack alert:severity=danger Some of these tags seem more like an instruction for the programmer how he should use the information, rather than actual information. What else would there be? alert=flashlight, alert:flash-frequency=2, alert:flash-colour=red? If there is a potential danger like sharks in the water, this could be formalized: danger=animals, danger:animals=sharks (given that there is a sign warning people, as I also agree with Ronnie, lets not promote personal comments). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
+1 for *any* object alerts. +1 that we mostly want the *official* alerts. The level of authority on the alert should be a tag, even if the description is free text: *osmid=1234* *map_alert:severity=critical* *map_alert**:note:en='Bridge operated by remote control. Press red button to alert operator. Posted sign warns: Vehicles on bridge without permission will be destroyed by artillery fire MEG12311-34.* *map_alert**:website:en=http://mil.example.gov/red_bridge.htm http://mil.example.gov/red_bridge.htm* *map_alert**:authority=sign;website;statute:milexamplegov12313-34u/a* *surface=paved* *highway=primary* *bridge=yes* *name=Red Bridge* *access=permissive* *barrier=explosive*s [Relations: example_gov_coastal_scenic_route, state highway #32323, bridges_rigged_with_explosives] This follows the principle that tags should be enough to set reasonable visibility, but free text may be more useful when communicating to humans. And like Wikipedia, it encourages such assertions be backed up by a strong reference. The use of ; above is deliberate: by setting a ; expectation from day one, render/edit software will be less likely to lag in support, and users less likely to create conflicts. - Note 1: It's possible that one object needs more than one distinct notice. The red bridge for example might have car size holes in it from artillery fire, which come under a different form of note. Note 2: Simply tagging the *warning sign* has certain merit, but is less semantic than above. One could also create a map_alert node connected to a OSM object: map_alert:severity=informational map_alert:season=spring *map_alert**:note:en='Sea monsters have been observed nipping at heels of pedestrians on bridge, but only in Spring'.* map_alert:osmid=*1234* So the map alert either works like a relation or is a relation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] hazards (was: Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability)
On 2014-01-13 14:53, Pieren wrote : On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, BGNO BGNO bgno2...@gmail.com wrote: The information which people gave me about the mentioned 20km long road was: Yes you can use the road with a regular car if it doesn't rain. I think it is practicable to tag that information into OSM. How would you tag that based on physical models? I agree with you. But there is currently nothing formally adopted for such access conditions based on weather. Searching the wiki, I found these proposals: - surface=all_weather ([1]) but the values should be reworked - dry_weather_only=yes/no ([2]) - the conditional access restrictions ([3]) (but this is more legal with traffic signs) - see all the pages on specific road tagging per countries ([4]) - and how other countries handle the question you raise. For instance, Australia ([5]) They are maybe other ideas. What you need is find the best one and use it. Or if you want that the community (and the renderers styles maintainers) adopt it as well, start a vote process and explain how important it is in your country. I think that those road conditions are akin to danger of flooding. I think that they generically belong to Proposed features/hazard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard of which the article in the discussion is very eloquent regarding the wide scope or that tag. I am surprised that this proposition is 6½ years old and that taggers have been tagging that much time without much concern with what it contains or can be extended to (and taggers, who seem more interested in adding new features than readjusting what was done, will probably rarely come back to add hazards). In particular, I have started tagging speed limits and I was perfectly astounded that absolutely no 30 km/h limit tagged so far indicates school/children safety. 30 km/h limits are often of that kind however and they are important to know as a child can burst from between two parked cars. I have slightly amended hazard=school_zone, especially to cover a crossing in that zone. I suggest that the discussion is ripe and that a vote be started at least for children hazards. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
