It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit mention 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 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard>=rock_slide <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:hazard%3Drock_slide&action=edit&redlink=1> 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 zelonew...@gmail.com: > 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. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
