It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit 
is it OK to tag hazard that

- exists
- is unsigned
- government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is 
dysfunctional/missing like
in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher priorities - for 
example during war)

Currently it is implied that it is not taggable, it would be good to have it 
mentioned explicitly.

Why hazard:animal and hazard:species is needed instead of animal and species? 


The use of hazard <>=rock_slide 
 is more popular than several alternatives, 
which are essentially describing the same thing: a hazard where rocks, earth, 
or mud might fall from above.

There is a big difference between rock slide, failing rocks and landslide.

I do not thing that deprecation of failing_rocks and landslide is a good idea,
I would keep them (I have seen signposted sign about landslide exactly once,
many, many signs of failing rocks - tagging rock_slide for either of them would 
be incorrect).

Nov 25, 2020, 14:12 by

> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous or 
> dangerous features.  This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have 
> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author.  Thanks to the 
> various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior to this 
> RFC.
> The key "hazard" has achieved over 28,000 usages, and it is proposed to 
> formalize usage of the most popular values of this key while deprecating 
> less-popular synonyms.  In addition, this proposes to deprecate 
> protect_class=16 in favor of the hazard key.

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to