Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:50 PM Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I poked into the existing usages of hazard=landslide, and they seem to > mostly be on hiking trails or at best track roads, rather than regular > roads. I don't think anyone would quibble with tagging a landslide hazard > on this [1] for example. > > [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Landslide_area.JPG > I think that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/50114553127 might have similar signage on the trail that runs on the canyon rim - warning people who might want to head out to the edge for a photo. There's no signage at river level, but I'd still give the slope a wide berth when hiking in winter or heavy rain. (In better weather, all that scree makes for an easy ford, and in fact I'd just crossed dry-shod when I turned back to snap the picture.) In any case, I don't think there would be much controversy that the hazard exists, signed or not - and probably ought to be indicated. The place is close to the city of Schenectady, and many people come out unprepared for the conditions. Technical rescues are common, and every few years someone suffers a fatal fall or drowns. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
I poked into the existing usages of hazard=landslide, and they seem to mostly be on hiking trails or at best track roads, rather than regular roads. I don't think anyone would quibble with tagging a landslide hazard on this [1] for example. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Landslide_area.JPG On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:26 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 01:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:09 PM Paul Allen wrote: >> >>> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears >>> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to >>> happen. >>> >> >> The idea of "we don't build where the rocks might fall in the road" >> doesn't work all that well when every mountain pass poses the same risk. >> > > We have quite a lot of falling/fallen rocks hazards. We seem happy to > build > roads there. Not so many roads by landslide hazards. Apart from a few > by colliery spoil tips, but there was no anticipated landslide hazard with > those. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > 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] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 01:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:09 PM Paul Allen wrote: > >> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears >> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to >> happen. >> > > The idea of "we don't build where the rocks might fall in the road" > doesn't work all that well when every mountain pass poses the same risk. > We have quite a lot of falling/fallen rocks hazards. We seem happy to build roads there. Not so many roads by landslide hazards. Apart from a few by colliery spoil tips, but there was no anticipated landslide hazard with those. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where > danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale > rock slide. > > Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard > road > sign. > > (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...) > > Disclaimer: I am from a relatively flat country, maybe this sign warns > about > full scale rock slides elsewhere? > You are a flatlander, aren't you? Around here, before the international iconography was adopted, the signs always said, 'fallEN rocks'. There's precious little a driver can do about fallING rocks, but incidents of being under them are vanishingly rare. Instead, the real hazard is fallEN rock blocking the roadway. (Even now, the MUTCD W8-14 sign prefers the sign with the English words http://www.trafficsign.us/150/warn/w8-14.png, although some states, particularly near the Canadian border, favor the pictorial one https://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/v/vspfiles/photos/cust_W8-14-2.gif that suggests, incorrectly, that fallING rocks are the chief hazard.) Around here, also, the stone is sedimentary, often consisting of layers of soft shale or dolomitic limestone interspersed with much harder sandstone. The shale erodes away from underneath in a valley or highway gut, until the sandstone on top of it can no longer support the weight of the overhang and collapses, It has little enough structural integrity that you don't generally get single rocks falling, you get a pile of talus and debris. Sometimes it's a five minute job with a skid-steer to push the stuff away. Sometimes it's a couple of weeks with many vehicles to clear away a huge mass of material and rebuild the shattered pavement underneath. On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:09 PM Paul Allen wrote: > That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears > we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to > happen. > The idea of "we don't build where the rocks might fall in the road" doesn't work all that well when every mountain pass poses the same risk. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
Not all land slides are rock slides. Some are mostly silt or loamy soil, so are often “mudslides”, e.g. in the Northwest Pacific coast of Canada and the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oso_mudslide So I would prefer “landslide” as a more general term. - Joseph Eisenberg On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it >> where >> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale >> rock slide. >> >> Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard >> road >> sign. >> >> (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...) >> > > Since we do have that luxury, and there is a valid reason for preferring > terminology as actually signed, then we can adopt "hazard=falling_rocks" > (53 usages) and deprecate "hazard=rockfall" (182 usages). These are small > enough numbers that there shouldn't be any harm in choosing the smaller one. > > Can we treat landslide and rock_slide as the same thing? If so, > "hazard=rock_slide" has 394 usages and "hazard=landslide" has 35 usages. > In that case, I would propose to adopt the more popular "rock_slide" and > deprecate "landslide" as duplicate. > > Would this address the concerns? > > ___ > 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] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
You can also get rather philosophical about it as well :-) https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cW9iNszeKWU/WDuxft3rVBI/G70/HHEd7-W84k0tG_gakCs78RXXfoBfREfigCLcB/s1600/falling-rocks-dj-homewrecker.jpg Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where > danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale > rock slide. > > Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard > road > sign. > > (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...) > Since we do have that luxury, and there is a valid reason for preferring terminology as actually signed, then we can adopt "hazard=falling_rocks" (53 usages) and deprecate "hazard=rockfall" (182 usages). These are small enough numbers that there shouldn't be any harm in choosing the smaller one. Can we treat landslide and rock_slide as the same thing? If so, "hazard=rock_slide" has 394 usages and "hazard=landslide" has 35 usages. In that case, I would propose to adopt the more popular "rock_slide" and deprecate "landslide" as duplicate. Would this address the concerns? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 18:16, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote: > > > That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears > we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to > happen. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A625_road#Mam_Tor_road > How could I forget Mam Tor? I did cover myself by saying "anticipated" but that was insufficient cover. I should have said "anticipated by morons." -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
Dec 3, 2020, 19:14 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> >>> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where >>> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale >>> rock slide. >>> >> >> In the UK we do not appear to have any signage warning of landslides. The >> one sign we have is described as warning of "falling or fallen rocks." A >> landslide is very different to falling rocks. >> >> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears >> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to >> happen. >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A625_road#Mam_Tor_road > > See ongoing "Rest and Be Thankful" mountain pass landslide. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95243064 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2450961 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > > > I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use > > it where > > danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full > > scale rock slide. > > > > In the UK we do not appear to have any signage warning of > landslides. The > one sign we have is described as warning of "falling or fallen > rocks." A > landslide is very different to falling rocks. > > That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears > we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to > happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A625_road#Mam_Tor_road Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where > danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale > rock slide. > In the UK we do not appear to have any signage warning of landslides. The one sign we have is described as warning of "falling or fallen rocks." A landslide is very different to falling rocks. That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to happen. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale rock slide. Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard road sign. (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...) Disclaimer: I am from a relatively flat country, maybe this sign warns about full scale rock slides elsewhere? As far as I know such dangers are common in Asia, especially mountainous parts such as Nepal. I wonder how this is signed (and is signed at all). See for example second image on https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/26/landslides-and-roads-recent-examples/ or https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/20/hanyuan-county-1/ or other materials from that blog. Dec 3, 2020, 18:14 by zelonew...@gmail.com: > Hello, > > I've made a number of updates to the "hazard" proposal [1] based on the input > received. Thanks to those that offered comment and feedback so far during > this RFC. > > I request community help on resolving feedback on the proposed tag > hazard=rock_slide and deprecation of three values of hazard: rockfall, > falling_rocks, and landslide. The feedback was that rock falls, rockslides > and landslides are different and should not be conflated in a single value. > Indeed, geologically they are different; a "fall" implies material falling > from a cliff while a "slide" implies material sliding down a slope. > Additionally "rock" versus "land" describes a different type of material that > might fall or slide. > > However, in standard road signage, there is a single pictogram for all of > these forms of falling/sliding material that almost universally depicts a > steep slope with pieces of falling debris. See the referenced wikipedia > articles [2][3] in the row labelled "falling rocks or debris" for examples in > many countries. > > In some cases, this pictogram is also combined with text that further > specificies "landslide" [4] or signs might say in words only "rock slide > area" or "slide area". The "falling rocks or debris" sign is also commonly > used by itself to generally indicate this category of hazard. In these cases > (the falling rocks/debris pictogram sign used by itself), my thinking was > that a mapper should have a single tag that they can apply, without having to > specifically determine the exact geological character of the rock/land > fall/slide hazard. Thus, I've proposed to adopt the most common variant > "rock_slide" to cover all of these cases, which a mapper could use anytime > they map a sign with that pictogram, and deprecate the others, in order to > create consistent tagging. > > I request community feedback on this specific question of how to tag this > type of hazard for cases of: > (a) When the mapper observes the "falling rocks or debris" sign but is unsure > of whether it is specifically a rock/land slide/fall > (b) When the mapper observes the sign, and knows the specific geological type > (c) When the mapper observes a sign with specific text that states "falling > rocks", "rock fall", or "landslide" > > Do these distinctions need to be tagged differently, and if so, are there > suggestions on how that tagging might be constructed? > > [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard > [2] > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced_traffic_signs > [3] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_signs > [4] > > https://www.pdsigns.ie/product/safety-construction-hazard-warning-risk-of-landslide-on-cliff-edge-sign/> > (note: commercial site) > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide
Hello, I've made a number of updates to the "hazard" proposal [1] based on the input received. Thanks to those that offered comment and feedback so far during this RFC. I request community help on resolving feedback on the proposed tag hazard=rock_slide and deprecation of three values of hazard: rockfall, falling_rocks, and landslide. The feedback was that rock falls, rockslides and landslides are different and should not be conflated in a single value. Indeed, geologically they are different; a "fall" implies material falling from a cliff while a "slide" implies material sliding down a slope. Additionally "rock" versus "land" describes a different type of material that might fall or slide. However, in standard road signage, there is a single pictogram for all of these forms of falling/sliding material that almost universally depicts a steep slope with pieces of falling debris. See the referenced wikipedia articles [2][3] in the row labelled "falling rocks or debris" for examples in many countries. In some cases, this pictogram is also combined with text that further specificies "landslide" [4] or signs might say in words only "rock slide area" or "slide area". The "falling rocks or debris" sign is also commonly used by itself to generally indicate this category of hazard. In these cases (the falling rocks/debris pictogram sign used by itself), my thinking was that a mapper should have a single tag that they can apply, without having to specifically determine the exact geological character of the rock/land fall/slide hazard. Thus, I've proposed to adopt the most common variant "rock_slide" to cover all of these cases, which a mapper could use anytime they map a sign with that pictogram, and deprecate the others, in order to create consistent tagging. I request community feedback on this specific question of how to tag this type of hazard for cases of: (a) When the mapper observes the "falling rocks or debris" sign but is unsure of whether it is specifically a rock/land slide/fall (b) When the mapper observes the sign, and knows the specific geological type (c) When the mapper observes a sign with specific text that states "falling rocks", "rock fall", or "landslide" Do these distinctions need to be tagged differently, and if so, are there suggestions on how that tagging might be constructed? [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced_traffic_signs [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_signs [4] https://www.pdsigns.ie/product/safety-construction-hazard-warning-risk-of-landslide-on-cliff-edge-sign/ (note: commercial site) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
