I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards, if that's the consensus. I was trying to address anticipated concerns about tagging unverifiable things. For example, someone in a western country tagging a curve hazard on every instance of a bend in the road and not just the signed parts.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020, 8:06 AM Yves via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > And hazards for niche practices (climbing, whitewater sports, ski > touring,...) that are actually mapped in OSM are not generally signposted > or 'official'. > Maybe we can't expect this proposal to cover them, but you can't prevent > users to use the tag hazard to map them. > Yves > > Le 26 novembre 2020 10:10:45 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>: >> >>> >>> - 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) >>> >>> >> >> +1. This may also depend on the context. The same kind of hazard on a >> road may well be signposted, but not on a hiking trail in a forest. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging