Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
In general I have avoided proposing values for these "warning of something ahead" signs that are at a non-trivial distance from the hazard, as I think that is a controversial usage, deserving of a separate discussion and/or proposal. Since there is already a tag for cattle grids and there is no usage under hazard=* in taginfo, I would not add a new value for these, and I note that the traffic_sign key has a general facility for tagging of standard traffic signs by traffic sign ID. On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:00 PM Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 07:27 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > Grid: to warn that you are approaching a cattle grid - we already > > have a tag for grids, do we also need a sign to warn that they're > > coming up? > > Welsh example (I have never seen these in England). > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/NiGw-6hqC72o_jkcnxe4UQ > > > > Graeme > > > > ___ > > 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] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 07:27 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Grid: to warn that you are approaching a cattle grid - we already > have a tag for grids, do we also need a sign to warn that they're > coming up? Welsh example (I have never seen these in England). https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/NiGw-6hqC72o_jkcnxe4UQ > Graeme > > ___ > 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 - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:47:26PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > > We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between > > Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged. I have deleted my several dashcam videos of this area, but one of the signs, which I think says "Blind Summit" can be seen on streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4851274,-1.7148865,3a,37.5y,349.47h,74.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UPhVs9Z98up8HFuiCls_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 From the other direction, it is signed as "Hidden dips": https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4870872,-1.7154736,3a,75y,179.17h,94.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA2dVccotjHlO5eWdJLnX3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 23:37, Paul Allen wrote: > > Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not > falling, rocks. There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your > vehicle but the greater risk, by far, is that you will drive into a fallen > rock. > But not always! https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WsC1Ee0QfGg/SdqAsY6oJwI/Akg/P71eh3vrZj0/s280/rockslide+4.bmp Editors could make both fallen and falling searchable, and identify > the preset as "falling/fallen rocks," so we might as well make the > value reflect the really big risk rather than the very small one. > While I agree with you, our signs do say "Falling"! On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 03:30, Paul Allen wrote: > > Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you > have for minefields. That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard > 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded > explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive, > and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded). In old money it > would have been called "unexploded bomb." > Our UXO, or "Live bombs" sign, depending on the sign it's on, is https://cdn-01.media-brady.com/store/stuk/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/85e4522595efc69f496374d01ef2bf13/1563992197/d/m/dmeu_hz185ad_std.lang.all.jpg I think that moved away from "bomb" because other things (artillery shells, grenades, rockets etc) can all blow up & kill you? On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 04:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > >> >> >>- Hidden dip >> >> Maybe. There is a barely used tag hazard=dip. Is this a permanent > feature? I usually see these in relation to road construction. Note that > speed dips are already covered under the key traffic_calming, so this would > have to describe a permanent, signed dangerous feature that wasn't put > there for traffic control reason. > Yes, they are permanent features & relatively common out here, with a "very" complicated warning sign! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-9.svg A few more that I've just thought of: Tilting truck: This sign warns that trucks may tip over when driving around the curve of the road or when making a turn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_W1-8_(L).svg Emergency vehicles: give you early warning that emergency vehicles may suddenly drive in or out of their entrance onto the road. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-SA70.svg Grid: to warn that you are approaching a cattle grid - we already have a tag for grids, do we also need a sign to warn that they're coming up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia#/media/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-16.svg Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 20:43, ael via Tagging wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:07:52PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > > > >- Hidden dip > > > > > > Maybe. There is a barely used tag hazard=dip. Is this a permanent > > feature? > > We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between > Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged. I struggle to > see why tagging as a hazard would be useful in OSM today, but perhaps > with sophisticated routers issuing an alarm on approach might be > something in the future. These dips are clearly signed. > I would prefer a router warn me of such things at the outset, when I could ask it for an alternative route. Finding out when you get near may still need extensive back-tracking. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
> > We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between > Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged. > with sophisticated routers issuing an alarm on approach might be > something in the future. These dips are clearly signed. > You've just convinced me that this IS something that should be tagged! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:07:52PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > >- Hidden dip > > > > Maybe. There is a barely used tag hazard=dip. Is this a permanent > feature? We have examples in the UK, even on major roads like the A346 between Marlborough and Swindon. I don't think they are tagged. I struggle to see why tagging as a hazard would be useful in OSM today, but perhaps with sophisticated routers issuing an alarm on approach might be something in the future. These dips are clearly signed. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 20:01, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 09/12/2020 19:43, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > For the swing bridge, it's covered. But the text says "Opening or swing > > bridge." > > I have no idea what an opening in a route might be if it's not a movable > > bridge > > but maybe somebody else on the list does. > > Lift bridge. Has a horizontal axis for the moving part, which moves > vertically. > Think of Tower Bridge, > Thanks. I was parsing that wrong. I was thinking "(opening) or (swing bridge)" not "(opening or swing) bridge." No wonder it had me puzzled. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On 09/12/2020 19:43, Paul Allen wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Here are the ones that I think are worth considering: - Opening or swing bridge ahead This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its various sub-keys that describe different types of movable bridges. For the swing bridge, it's covered. But the text says "Opening or swing bridge." I have no idea what an opening in a route might be if it's not a movable bridge but maybe somebody else on the list does. Lift bridge. Has a horizontal axis for the moving part, which moves vertically. Think of Tower Bridge, As opposed to a vertical axis so that the bridge roadbed can swivel in the horizontal plane. That would be a "swing bridge". Both are "opening bridges". - Hidden dip Maybe. There is a barely used tag hazard=dip. Is this a permanent feature? I don't know. I don't recall ever seeing that sign. But in my part of the world we have old hump-backed bridges so it's conceivable we have roads with hidden dips, too. It's a hazard you want to know about if you are a car driver thinking of an overtake. "don't do it; an oncoming car might suddenly appear". -- Cheers, Jeremy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > >> Here are the ones that I think are worth considering: >> >>- Opening or swing bridge ahead >> >> This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its > various sub-keys that describe different types of movable bridges. > For the swing bridge, it's covered. But the text says "Opening or swing bridge." I have no idea what an opening in a route might be if it's not a movable bridge but maybe somebody else on the list does. - Overhead electric cable Overhead powerline cables are already mapped, it seems that would be > sufficient to know that there is an overhead cable. > Only if the height of the cable is specified, and it rarely is. In my country there are minimum clearances in most cases, and only extra-tall vehicles need to take special care. But there are cases where the clearance is lower than might normally be expected. My feeling is that if some authority thinks a cable needs a warning sign then it should be considered a hazard. - Hidden dip Maybe. There is a barely used tag hazard=dip. Is this a permanent feature? > I don't know. I don't recall ever seeing that sign. But in my part of the world we have old hump-backed bridges so it's conceivable we have roads with hidden dips, too. One not covered there is the warning that a route is unsuitable for long >> > vehicles. There are a few minor roads near me like that. Drive a long >> vehicle along them and (at best) you have a long reverse or (at worst) >> you get stuck. >> > > Since we have tags to describe the width of roads, and the ways making > them up have a geometry associated with them, it seems that this is > something that routers could simply calculate based on existing tagging. > Routers could calculate it, but at what computational cost? Maybe it's something they do anyway, so zero cost. Maybe it could be derived from something they already do, so low cost. My guess is that they don't examine road geometry in that much detail, if at all, and it would be expensive. Also, think of a T junction. A sharp, 90-degree turn. In practise, lane widths give some leeway for the turn. In practise, junction corners may be rounded to allow long vehicles to turn. Routers which tried to evaluate road geometry for long vehicles could end up incorrectly discarding T junctions. Digging around, I found https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedules/made which lists several "unsuitables": heavy goods vehicles, long vehicles, wide vehicles, buses, caravans, trailers, articulated vehicles. Some of those might be better handled by the appropriate access restriction, if we had access restrictions for them and if this were a legal prohibition (it isn't). > > >> Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you >> have for minefields. That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard >> 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded >> explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive, >> and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded). In old money it >> would have been called "unexploded bomb." >> > > Thanks! This is not a sign I normally see on my daily commute :) > I did some more digging. It's not a sign associated with minefields unless those minefields also have unexploded ordnance that isn't mines. There is no standard sign for minefields, but there is a semi-standard. See https://studioissa.com/warning-signs-how-landmines-can-teach-us-about-project-design-and-communication/ and https://www.mineactionstandards.org/fileadmin/MAS/documents/archives/IMAS-08-40-Ed2-Am1.pdf -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
> Here are the ones that I think are worth considering: > >- Opening or swing bridge ahead > > This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its various sub-keys that describe different types of movable bridges. There were no existing usages I could find under the hazard key, and the case of a movable bridge _ahead_ sounds like a router problem. > >- Steep hill > > Covered by the approved key "incline" > >- Trams crossing ahead >- Level crossing without barrier or gate >- Frail (or blind or disabled) pedestrians crossing > > These are all versions of highway=crossing. I have deliberately not defined any crossing hazards as I feel they belong as part of that key, which has its own hierarchy for different types of hazards. If highway=crossing and hazard= should be comingled, I think that is a separate discussion that should be had. But, to keep this "clean", I'm specifically excluding highway=crossing hazards from consideration in this go. The only almost-exception is hazard=animal_crossing which is specifically NOT a highway=crossing. > >- Pedestrians in road ahead [no sidewalk] > > Already covered in the proposal with hazard=pedestrians > >- Overhead electric cable > > Overhead powerline cables are already mapped, it seems that would be sufficient to know that there is an overhead cable. There is zero existing usage that I can find under any tag value for indicating this type of hazard beyond the geometry of a power line drawn over the road. As such, I would exclude this case from this pass as potentially controversial/duplicative with existing tagging. > >- Sharp deviation of route > > Already covered in the proposal as a hazard=turn. I have not added additional tagging to describe the sharpness of the turn because that fact is already evident in the way geometry. > >- Ice > > This is a good suggestion, and I will add hazard=ice which has a handful of usages. It is distinctly different from hazard=frost_heave and will cover the various versions of "bridge freezes before roadway" and so forth. > >- Hidden dip > > Maybe. There is a barely used tag hazard=dip. Is this a permanent feature? I usually see these in relation to road construction. Note that speed dips are already covered under the key traffic_calming, so this would have to describe a permanent, signed dangerous feature that wasn't put there for traffic control reason. > One not covered there is the warning that a route is unsuitable for long > vehicles. There are a few minor roads near me like that. Drive a long > vehicle along them and (at best) you have a long reverse or (at worst) > you get stuck. > Since we have tags to describe the width of roads, and the ways making them up have a geometry associated with them, it seems that this is something that routers could simply calculate based on existing tagging. In order to avoid tags which might be controversial or redundant with other tagging, I would not include this -- similar to a "narrow road" hazard which I have chosen to exclude for the same reason. I feel that these cases are potentially more complex and deserve a separate consideration and/or proposal. > Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you > have for minefields. That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard > 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded > explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive, > and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded). In old money it > would have been called "unexploded bomb." > Thanks! This is not a sign I normally see on my daily commute :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 16:53, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I think there may be other hazard warning signs in that document for you to >> consider. >> > Many of the signs on that list are already described by other tags. > It's a list of all warning signs, not merely hazards. But there are quite a few hazard signs in there. > Are there specific signs you feel are missing from the hazard key? > I didn't do a full comparison. I was kinda hoping you would, seeing as you probably remembered which ones you'd added to your proposal. Some of them are debatable as to whether or not existing tagging is adequate. Here are the ones that I think are worth considering: - Opening or swing bridge ahead - Steep hill - Trams crossing ahead - Level crossing without barrier or gate - Frail (or blind or disabled) pedestrians crossing - Pedestrians in road ahead [no sidewalk] - Overhead electric cable - Sharp deviation of route - Ice - Hidden dip I wouldn't have thought the ice hazard needed mentioning, if it weren't for the plot of a Jack Reacher novel. Some bridges can ice over sooner than the rest of the road even when icing doesn't seem much of a risk, and that may be a problem other than on bridges. Depending on climate, such a warning may be present year-round. One not covered there is the warning that a route is unsuitable for long vehicles. There are a few minor roads near me like that. Drive a long vehicle along them and (at best) you have a long reverse or (at worst) you get stuck. Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you have for minefields. That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive, and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded). In old money it would have been called "unexploded bomb." -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
> I'd suggest fallen_rock and low_flying_aircraft as tag values based upon > the common case but have the proposal mention their secondary application. > I actually have low_flying_aircraft in the proposal as a value, though I just discovered that there is a more common value in use, "air_traffic" (88 usages). However, I agree with the suggestions that low_flying_aircraft is the better tag value and will add "air_traffic" to the deprecation list. I will wait to see if I hear more from others about fallen vs falling rocks, but I note your comments and Kevin's also. > I think there may be other hazard warning signs in that document for you to > consider. > Many of the signs on that list are already described by other tags. For example, the "yield" sign is covered by highway=give_way. In general, I think we have that list pretty well covered, though there may be one or two more obscure cases. Are there specific signs you feel are missing from the hazard key? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 14:26, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I have found examples of both falling rock[1] and fallen rocks[2] on > signage and it's not clear to me which is the more common. > The UK signage for this hazard doesn't have text. But the explanation of the signage in the Highway Code says it warns of "Falling or fallen rocks." See https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/warning-signs-on-the-road.html and search for "falling". In that same document, just above the falling/fallen rocks sign is the aircraft sign which it says warns of "Low-flying aircraft or sudden aircraft noise". Low-flying aircraft will often cause a sudden aircraft noise, but a high-flying supersonic aircraft can generate a sonic boom (but these are rare and if they occur they are not likely to be predictable as they will usually be the result of an emergency). I'd suggest fallen_rock and low_flying_aircraft as tag values based upon the common case but have the proposal mention their secondary application. I think there may be other hazard warning signs in that document for you to consider. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
I have found examples of both falling rock[1] and fallen rocks[2] on signage and it's not clear to me which is the more common. There are >50 usages of hazard=falling_rocks and only 3 usages of "Fallen rock" (with incorrect space and capitalization), so I went with what was most commonly tagged. I am not opposed to abandoning this minor usage of falling_rock and replacing it with a new fallen_rock if that's the consensus. Are others in favor of dropping falling_rocks for fallen_rocks? [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Falling_Rock_-_Colorado_Mountains_(44651781425).jpg [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NYS_NYW4-14.svg On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:37 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 13:13, Brian M. Sperlongano > wrote: > > Add hazard=falling_rocks, landslide; deprecate rock_slide, rockfall >> > > Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not > falling, rocks. There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your > vehicle but the greater risk, by far, is that you will drive into a fallen > rock. > > Editors could make both fallen and falling searchable, and identify > the preset as "falling/fallen rocks," so we might as well make the > value reflect the really big risk rather than the very small one. > > -- > 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 - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 13:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Add hazard=falling_rocks, landslide; deprecate rock_slide, rockfall > Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not falling, rocks. There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your vehicle but the greater risk, by far, is that you will drive into a fallen rock. Editors could make both fallen and falling searchable, and identify the preset as "falling/fallen rocks," so we might as well make the value reflect the really big risk rather than the very small one. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
