+1 for *any* object alerts. +1 that we mostly want the *official* alerts. The level of authority on the alert should be a tag, even if the description is free text:
*osmid=1234* *map_alert:severity=critical* *map_alert**:note:en='Bridge operated by remote control. Press red button to alert operator. Posted sign warns: Vehicles on bridge without permission will be destroyed by artillery fire MEG12311-34."* *map_alert**:website:en=http://mil.example.gov/red_bridge.htm <http://mil.example.gov/red_bridge.htm>* *map_alert**:authority=sign;website;statute:milexamplegov12313-34u/a* *surface=paved* *highway=primary* *bridge=yes* *name=Red Bridge* *access=permissive* *barrier=explosive*s [Relations: example_gov_coastal_scenic_route, state highway #32323, bridges_rigged_with_explosives] This follows the principle that tags should be enough to set reasonable visibility, but free text may be more useful when communicating to humans. And like Wikipedia, it encourages such assertions be backed up by a strong reference. The use of ; above is deliberate: by setting a ; expectation from day one, render/edit software will be less likely to lag in support, and users less likely to create conflicts. ------------- Note 1: It's possible that one object needs more than one distinct notice. The red bridge for example might have car size holes in it from artillery fire, which come under a different form of note. Note 2: Simply tagging the *warning sign* has certain merit, but is less semantic than above. One could also create a map_alert node connected to a OSM object: map_alert:severity=informational map_alert:season=spring *map_alert**:note:en='Sea monsters have been observed nipping at heels of pedestrians on bridge, but only in Spring'.* map_alert:osmid=*1234* So the map alert either works like a relation or is a relation.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
