Niels, thanks for the list. I was able to find examples and existing tagging for most of the values you noted as missing, and I've updated the proposal to add them. I did already have a value listed dangerous intersection (hazard=dangerous_junction, 400 usages).
The one you listed that is not clear is the one that you describe as "dangerous road edge". The linked sign looks more like a "soft verge" or "soft shoulder" sign, and there are no existing tag values that I can find for this type of hazard. There is a small number of usages of hazard=uneven_road, however that sign usually looks something like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Traffic_sign#/media/File:1.16_Russian_road_sign.svg There is also a small usage of hazard=cliff, which has particularly fun signs, notably: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_road_sign_W_160.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Don%27t_fall_off_the_Cliff!_(16841837743).jpg On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 8:06 AM Niels Elgaard Larsen <elga...@agol.dk> wrote: > På Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:11:25 -0500 > > > I am missing values for: > > horse riding: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_47.png > hazard:animal=horse should only be for wild horses > > Crossing bicyclists: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_45.png > > Slippery road: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_50.png > How do we map "slippery when wet"? Or ice? > > Loose rocks on the road: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_52.PNG > > Dangerous road edge: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_54.png > > low airplanes and helicopters: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_82.png > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_83.png > > Queue risk: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_44.png > > Dangerous intersections > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_85.png > > "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonew...@gmail.com> skrev: > >I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards, if that's the > >consensus. I was trying to address anticipated concerns about tagging > >unverifiable things. > > It could be verified in other ways. For example official reports based > on statistics. Or newspaper articles on accidents caused by crossing > animals on a certain stretch of road. > > > 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. > > I agree. In fact there is not much point in tagging even the signed > parts. > > The reason for those signs is that the driver cannot see road ahead or > that it is difficult to judge the sharpness from the perspective of a > car. > But with a map it can be done. A data consumer is in a better position > to decide if turns are hazards. When using a navigation system, I can > look at the screen and judge if the next turn could be a problem. > > I could also tell my navigation software which vehicle I am driving and > it could use that information together with my current position, my > actual speed and the data on the road ahead to decide if I should be > alerted. > > For the same reason there is also no reason to tag signed hazards for: > > Tunnels: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_68.png > > Steep inclines/declines: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_69.png > > level crossing without gates: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_71.png > > bridges that open: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_79.png > > Quays without guards: > https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668&img=CX316_8_80.png > > because all those can be inferred from other tags. > > >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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
