There are area hazards around, like shooting ranges, and high electric fields around radio transmitters, and more likely others.
I am not insisting on using the hazard key - I only noted similarities. On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 17:33, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key > has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways. > > Also, currently waterfalls (which can be considered very large and steep > rapids!) are tagged waterway=waterfall on a node. Other waterway barriers > are also tagged this way, e.g. waterway=dam and waterway=weir. Tagging > waterway=rapids on a node allows rapids to be tagged like other waterway > barriers to travel and similar to waterfalls. > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:36 AM Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 2020-12-17, kt, 00:02 ael via Tagging rašė: >> > This is slightly off-topic in that I am picking up on the >> > hazard tag rather than rapids. I see no objection to adding >> hazard=rapids >> > although that might be redundant unless there exist rapids that are >> > not hazardous. I suppose shallow rapids might qualify. >> >> Note that rapid does not necessarily have to be interpreted as >> hazard. If prominent on the ground it can be one of orienting points >> (with bridges, settlements, intakes etc.) - to cover distance >> covered/remaining. We have a lot of "small rapids" which can be easily >> passed with no risk even with babies and they're still marked for >> orienting purposes. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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