Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

2020-12-04 Thread Kevin Kenny
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

2020-12-03 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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

2020-12-03 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-03 Thread Kevin Kenny
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

2020-12-03 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
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

2020-12-03 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
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

2020-12-03 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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

2020-12-03 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



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

2020-12-03 Thread Philip Barnes
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

2020-12-03 Thread Paul Allen
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

2020-12-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
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

2020-12-03 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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