On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 02:33, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
> has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
>
Here are some examples of tags as "waterway feature" + type=hazard
hazard=yes is neither banned nor discouraged. It was simply not included
in the list of proposed approved tags due to objections raised during the
RFC. The goal was to approve the hazard tagging that everyone agreed on.
Since hazard=yes has some existing tagging (>600 uses), it would still be
On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 17:08 +, ael via Tagging wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the
> > hazard key
> > has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
>
> Not in my
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Also, currently waterfalls (which can be considered very large and steep
> rapids!) are tagged waterway=waterfall on a node. Other waterway barriers
> are also tagged this way, e.g. waterway=dam and waterway=weir. Tagging
>
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
> has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
Not in my part of the world. Why try to restrict the scope artificially?
Hazard in
There are area hazards around, like shooting ranges, and high electric
fields around radio transmitters, and more likely others.
I am not insisting on using the hazard key - I only noted similarities.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 17:33, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Another argument against use of
Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
Also, currently waterfalls (which can be considered very large and steep
rapids!) are tagged waterway=waterfall on a node. Other waterway barriers
are
2020-12-17, kt, 00:02 ael via Tagging rašė:
> This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the
> hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding hazard=rapids
> although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are
> not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might
I'm not sure how long it is, but California's Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast
(a fairly well known, well loved road) has some equivalently lengthy (or
longer) winding road signs I've seen. If anyone cares to Mapillary-sniff, I
recall one near Carmel Highlands (near the "pink hotel?") and
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:24, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the comments! For the specific linked case (winding road for
> 74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal -
> hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74
> consecutive miles, that
Volker,
Thanks for the comments! For the specific linked case (winding road for
74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal -
hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74
consecutive miles, that I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth
of ways in
I'm "one more OSM Contributor" volunteering my opinion here. I voted for the
hazard proposal as is, although my vote included the note that "this proposal
is a solid foundation for the (hazard) syntax of both today and tomorrow."
There are such things: OSM has many examples of where we begin
Brian,
I am trying to put order in this also in my own mind.
I think we should have an approach which is already clearly structured
towards two things
A the difference between
- signposted hazards
- unsigned hazards perceived by the mappers
B for hazards that may have different degrees of
As the maintainer of the current hazard proposal - I don't really have
strong opinions about signed versus unsigned hazards, though I know others
do. However, signed hazards seem to be something that we all agree should
be tagged, and this proposal is attempting to approve the collection of
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I see this subject directly related to the "hazard" discussion in the sense
> that I suggested to clearly define the difference between signposted
> hazards/dangers/warnings and un-signed such situations that are observable
> on the
I see this subject directly related to the "hazard" discussion in the sense
that I suggested to clearly define the difference between signposted
hazards/dangers/warnings and un-signed such situations that are observable
on the ground, and therefore are subject also to personal judgement. With
+1
IMHO these are complementary. waterway=rapids can be tagged from overhead
imagery, and the additional detail of the rapids can be added later by
people with subject matter expertise.
I see this as equivalent to sac_scale=* for hiking trails - it does not
replace the underlying highway=path,
In the year 2020 waterway=rapids has been added a couple hundred times, and
the other two tags whitewater:section_grade and whitewater:rapid_grade have
been used about 100 times each:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/whitewater:rapid_grade/&***/whitewater:section_grade/&***/waterway/rapids
18 matches
Mail list logo
