On Jan 5, 2020, at 9:48 PM, Julien djakk wrote:
> Hello ! For this kind of tagging, which is as subjective as the
> highway=secondary, there should be a consensus of local mappers.
>
> This kind of areas could be tagged as “you need to know the area to be safe
> among locals” :-)
I listen to
Hello ! For this kind of tagging, which is as subjective as the
highway=secondary, there should be a consensus of local mappers.
This kind of areas could be tagged as “you need to know the area to be safe
among locals” :-)
Julien “djakk”
Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 05:23, Paul Johnson a écrit :
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 16:14:30 +0100
> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>
> > hi all,
> >
> > did you read about the Suisse tourist couple which was shot because
> > they got lost in a Brasilian favela?
> >
> > NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) from Tuesday
Right, Martin; thanks. Joseph and I discussed off-list there is some
conflation of tags from hazard=* which intersect well with at least one or two
existing military=* tag values. So, yes, there is some overlap with existing
tag (natural=cliff, too).
I have read our hazard wiki (thanks for
sent from a phone
> On 31. Dec 2019, at 19:37, stevea wrote:
>
> Many (most?) like radiation, live minefields, military bombing areas,
military=danger_area
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Ddanger_area
hazard=*
I've certainly tagged plenty of natural=cliff (and I'm not done yet), there's
lots of them around me. So perhaps hazard=chasm could deprecate as one value
of the proposed key hazard, deferring to natural=cliff.
Still, there are plenty of objective, not-going-away-soon,
31 Dec 2019, 19:35 by stevea...@softworkers.com:
> Really? Actual, real-life hazards like [chasm
>
natural=cliff?___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Really? Actual, real-life hazards like [chasm, radiation, rock_slide,
minefield...] are not worthy of that tag on a node and some Carto-code to toss
up a triangle-! icon on our map? Where's the harm? (Literally).
Perhaps we implement these without including (or specifically EXcluding) the
This question rears its head every year or so & the conclusions are
always the same:
Far too subjective, Far too transient. Best left to be shown as an
overlay by local authorities.
My police force produce both crime & road traffic collision maps.
DaveF
On 31/12/2019 15:14, Martin Trautmann
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 16:14:30 +0100
Martin Trautmann wrote:
> hi all,
>
> did you read about the Suisse tourist couple which was shot because
> they got lost in a Brasilian favela?
>
> NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) from Tuesday 31.12.2019. ("Schweizer
> Ehepaar bei Irrfahrt duch Favela in
As a long-time OSMer, I offer perspective on two "dangerous areas" near me, one
past, one present.
On my university campus (University of California) there WAS an area in a
meadow which was grazed by cattle (both from the original landuse from a
century ago and presently, as these meadows are
Wouldn't that just be a crime map or a bias towards areas vs others.
Sounds like an osm use case more than a needed tag
On Tue., Dec. 31, 2019, 10:18 a.m. Martin Trautmann, wrote:
> hi all,
>
> did you read about the Suisse tourist couple which was shot because they
> got lost in a Brasilian
hi all,
did you read about the Suisse tourist couple which was shot because they
got lost in a Brasilian favela?
NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) from Tuesday 31.12.2019. ("Schweizer Ehepaar
bei Irrfahrt duch Favela in Brasilien
angeschossen")
Other examples are e.g. Mafia areas within Kosovo - or
13 matches
Mail list logo
