Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

2020-12-16 Thread stevea
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 another further 
south, near McWay Falls or is it more near JFBSP?  Esalen?  Definitely seen 
some around there).  Northbound you might have to look around Cambria, I don't 
often approach from that side (northbound).  Long, sinuous roads do happen and 
are sometimes even signed.  I think that despite how famous this drive is 
(about as well-driven as Yosemite National Park in summer), you don't want to 
be in a 12-meter motorhome on this road and not know what the next 200 
kilometers are going to be like (windy and very few places to pull over or park 
such a behemoth). Still, such "big traffic" (giant Recreational Vehicles) do 
make this trek.  Such a sign might make someone think twice and I think that's 
part of the reason Caltrans erects them.  And nobody likes getting stuck behind 
a slow, giant RV.

> On Dec 16, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 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 I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth of ways in 
> this way.
> 
> & we'll have to do the same for this! :-)
> 
> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BPN0FY/warning-sign-on-the-eyre-highway-across-the-nullarbor-plain-western-BPN0FY.jpg

And the Nullarbor Plain (love that name) I think also famously has the longest 
straight stretch of railway on Earth.  I'd tend to say "railroad," US English 
being my mother tongue, "railroad" for "railway" being a US English dialect 
marker.  Like holding up three fingers in a certain way.  Or Ex-Wye-Zed vs. 
Ex-Wye-Zee.  It's a big world.  Lots of long, straight roads, lots of long, 
windy roads.

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


Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
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 I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth
> of ways in this way.
>

& we'll have to do the same for this! :-)

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BPN0FY/warning-sign-on-the-eyre-highway-across-the-nullarbor-plain-western-BPN0FY.jpg

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

2020-12-16 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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 this way.

With regard to perceived hazards, and degrees of hazards, these are clearly
interesting and complex topics.  I don't know how to address them, but I
like that you're breaking down the problem in a systematic way.  I'm
intrigued and interested in hearing more and/or collaborating on the
topic.  I think we would need to examine a handful of examples to really
understand the space.

That said, I don't think the lack of a generalized approach towards
signed/unsigned/graded hazards should prevent us from formalizing the
30,000 usages of the hazard key.  Mappers have "voted with their tagging"
and we should respect that unless there is a strong reason not to.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:30 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> 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 hazardness (like the
> difficulty classes of hiking paths, MTB tracks, rapids,...)
> we should have solutions that allow a basic tagging plus the option of
> classes of hazardness for advanced mappers
>
> This approach should be put in the hazard proposal, even if at the moment
> the proposal only covers signposted hazards.
>
> Volker
>
> PS be prepared: how do we tag a hazard like this.
> 
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 23:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> usages that we all agree on.  I knew going in that the topic was too big to
>> be able to address every possible hazard that someone might want to tag but
>> we have to start somewhere.
>>
>> So --- consider this proposal a starting point, not the end of the story!
>>
>> There is no reason why hazard tagging can't be expanded from this current
>> base, and since we have free tagging, there is nothing stopping any mapper
>> from either simply inventing their own new hazard tag values or other
>> usages for things not covered, or offering new proposals to expand the
>> usage.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM ael via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 ground, and therefore are subject also to personal judgement.
>>> With
>>> > other words, beyond the question of how to map it, there is also the
>>> > question of what is a rapid or any other hazard.
>>>
>>> I strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
>>> proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
>>> are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
>>> tags.
>>>
>>> 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 qualify.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> ___
> 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] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

2020-12-16 Thread stevea
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 something that 
is a well-thought-out sketch (or more, yet still recognizable as 
not-quite-complete) and then grows to a mature example of itself.  Perfection 
should not be the enemy of the good.  This is at least a good proposal, I'd 
even say "excellent," especially in its efforts to be comprehensive.  I say 
this neither to discourage the continuing good dialog here, nor the growth of 
"hazard" (syntax, wiki, usage in the map data...) into the future, but rather 
in harmony with those.  This puts me in agreement with Brian as he says 
"consider this proposal a starting point."  I'm saying "it's at least a good 
one, I'll even go 'excellent.'"

I believe the more voices we hear, the better.

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


Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

2020-12-16 Thread Volker Schmidt
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 hazardness (like the
difficulty classes of hiking paths, MTB tracks, rapids,...)
we should have solutions that allow a basic tagging plus the option of
classes of hazardness for advanced mappers

This approach should be put in the hazard proposal, even if at the moment
the proposal only covers signposted hazards.

Volker

PS be prepared: how do we tag a hazard like this.





On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 23:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> 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
> usages that we all agree on.  I knew going in that the topic was too big to
> be able to address every possible hazard that someone might want to tag but
> we have to start somewhere.
>
> So --- consider this proposal a starting point, not the end of the story!
>
> There is no reason why hazard tagging can't be expanded from this current
> base, and since we have free tagging, there is nothing stopping any mapper
> from either simply inventing their own new hazard tag values or other
> usages for things not covered, or offering new proposals to expand the
> usage.
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM ael via Tagging 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 ground, and therefore are subject also to personal judgement.
>> With
>> > other words, beyond the question of how to map it, there is also the
>> > question of what is a rapid or any other hazard.
>>
>> I strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
>> proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
>> are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
>> tags.
>>
>> 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 qualify.
>>
>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

2020-12-16 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
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
usages that we all agree on.  I knew going in that the topic was too big to
be able to address every possible hazard that someone might want to tag but
we have to start somewhere.

So --- consider this proposal a starting point, not the end of the story!

There is no reason why hazard tagging can't be expanded from this current
base, and since we have free tagging, there is nothing stopping any mapper
from either simply inventing their own new hazard tag values or other
usages for things not covered, or offering new proposals to expand the
usage.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:02 PM ael via Tagging 
wrote:

> 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 ground, and therefore are subject also to personal judgement. With
> > other words, beyond the question of how to map it, there is also the
> > question of what is a rapid or any other hazard.
>
> I strongly agree. I was planning to vote against the current hazard
> proposal on exactly these grounds. There are clear hazards that
> are not necessarily signed. I don't see why we need two different
> tags.
>
> 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 qualify.
>
> 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