Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

[Volker Schmidt]

The hazard tagging has a problem, when you try to apply it.

A dog hazard is a hazard to people by dogs or is a hazard to dogs by
mountain lions or whatever.
In a different thread we are discussing dooring hazard.
I would love to see a more general approach to hazard and danger tagging,
but do not have a proposal ready.
I would love to be able to tag hazards of all kinds mainly for cyclists in
my case.
One of them was hazard by free running dog packs.



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 13:14, ael  wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:26:07PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> > dog=yes|no|leashed already exists for a totally different semantic
> (letting dog owners know if their pet is allowed).
> >
> > If this goes forward I would prefer reversing thing and make it
> hazard=dog. That would also allow other types of hazards to be mapped.
> >
> > Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it?
>
> You beat me to it. The existing hazard tag is the obvious choice which I
> use quite often. Although it does not seem to be well supported by data
> consumers. I have used it in Cornwall to flag open mine shafts, and in
> one case to warn of dangerous (illegal) dogs on a right of way through a
> farmyard.
>
> 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 - Dog hazard

[ael]

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:26:07PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> dog=yes|no|leashed already exists for a totally different semantic (letting 
> dog owners know if their pet is allowed).
> 
> If this goes forward I would prefer reversing thing and make it hazard=dog. 
> That would also allow other types of hazards to be mapped.
> 
> Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it?

You beat me to it. The existing hazard tag is the obvious choice which I
use quite often. Although it does not seem to be well supported by data
consumers. I have used it in Cornwall to flag open mine shafts, and in
one case to warn of dangerous (illegal) dogs on a right of way through a
farmyard.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

[Warin]

On 13/5/20 9:28 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 13. May 2020, at 00:27, Tod Fitch  wrote:

Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it?

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard




there is also documentation.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard



'Documented' as a draft proposal over 10 years ago.

A simple search on the OSMwiki would reveal nothing, so the 
'documentation' is old, and hard to find.





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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

[Tod Fitch]

dog=yes|no|leashed already exists for a totally different semantic (letting dog 
owners know if their pet is allowed).

If this goes forward I would prefer reversing thing and make it hazard=dog. 
That would also allow other types of hazards to be mapped.

Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it?

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard
--
Sent from my phone, please forgive my brevity.

> On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM, Ty S  (mailto:mensaty2...@outlook.com)> wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_hazard
>
> Dangerous area with dogs.
>
> Please discuss on the page. I will respond to emails, but I rarely check, and 
> it may take a bit to get back with you.
> -- Floridaeditor
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. May 2020, at 00:27, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it?
> 
> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard



there is also documentation. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

[Ty S]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_hazard

Dangerous area with dogs.

Please discuss on the page. I will respond to emails, but I rarely check, and 
it may take a bit to get back with you.
-- Floridaeditor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging