I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale rock slide.
Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard road sign. (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of selecting any value...) Disclaimer: I am from a relatively flat country, maybe this sign warns about full scale rock slides elsewhere? ---- As far as I know such dangers are common in Asia, especially mountainous parts such as Nepal. I wonder how this is signed (and is signed at all). See for example second image on https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/26/landslides-and-roads-recent-examples/ or https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/10/20/hanyuan-county-1/ or other materials from that blog. Dec 3, 2020, 18:14 by zelonew...@gmail.com: > Hello, > > I've made a number of updates to the "hazard" proposal [1] based on the input > received. Thanks to those that offered comment and feedback so far during > this RFC. > > I request community help on resolving feedback on the proposed tag > hazard=rock_slide and deprecation of three values of hazard: rockfall, > falling_rocks, and landslide. The feedback was that rock falls, rockslides > and landslides are different and should not be conflated in a single value. > Indeed, geologically they are different; a "fall" implies material falling > from a cliff while a "slide" implies material sliding down a slope. > Additionally "rock" versus "land" describes a different type of material that > might fall or slide. > > However, in standard road signage, there is a single pictogram for all of > these forms of falling/sliding material that almost universally depicts a > steep slope with pieces of falling debris. See the referenced wikipedia > articles [2][3] in the row labelled "falling rocks or debris" for examples in > many countries. > > In some cases, this pictogram is also combined with text that further > specificies "landslide" [4] or signs might say in words only "rock slide > area" or "slide area". The "falling rocks or debris" sign is also commonly > used by itself to generally indicate this category of hazard. In these cases > (the falling rocks/debris pictogram sign used by itself), my thinking was > that a mapper should have a single tag that they can apply, without having to > specifically determine the exact geological character of the rock/land > fall/slide hazard. Thus, I've proposed to adopt the most common variant > "rock_slide" to cover all of these cases, which a mapper could use anytime > they map a sign with that pictogram, and deprecate the others, in order to > create consistent tagging. > > I request community feedback on this specific question of how to tag this > type of hazard for cases of: > (a) When the mapper observes the "falling rocks or debris" sign but is unsure > of whether it is specifically a rock/land slide/fall > (b) When the mapper observes the sign, and knows the specific geological type > (c) When the mapper observes a sign with specific text that states "falling > rocks", "rock fall", or "landslide" > > Do these distinctions need to be tagged differently, and if so, are there > suggestions on how that tagging might be constructed? > > [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard > [2] > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUTCD-influenced_traffic_signs > [3] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_signs > [4] > > https://www.pdsigns.ie/product/safety-construction-hazard-warning-risk-of-landslide-on-cliff-edge-sign/> > (note: commercial site) >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
