hazard=yes is neither banned nor discouraged. It was simply not included in the list of proposed approved tags due to objections raised during the RFC. The goal was to approve the hazard tagging that everyone agreed on. Since hazard=yes has some existing tagging (>600 uses), it would still be appropriate to document its use - it would just be listed as "in use" rather than "approved" on its wiki page.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 12:21 PM ael via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > > 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. > > Noone, AIUI, is suggesting otherwise. But in some cases, there may be a > case for adding hazard=yes. > > Other issue with the current wiki entry is that hazard=yes is > discouraged (banned?), in which case we get an awkward duplication like > hazard=rapids. Maybe in such a case, one could be more specific > like hazard=drowning, hazard=rocks, or whatever. > > Weirs are another case where some are much more dangerous than others, > and some may warrant a hazard tag as well. Again a case where > hazard=yes would be appropriate. > > ael > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
