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 more "sensitive" ones which are considered "subjective." We can't be "too subjective" if we aren't subjective at all. But, explicitly objective hazards do seem worthy to map. Many (most?) like radiation, live minefields, military bombing areas, sharp bluffs / cliffs are not transient at all and would likely remain as long-term hazards. I think we should revisit this rather than dismiss it matter-of-factly as "oh, that hazard thing that pops its head up every year or so." SteveA _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
