Proposal talk:Hazard/Archive 1

Discussion from original proposal page

(discuss proposed key here )

General

Don't miss Talk:Proposed_features/hazard ;-) and please match against this list 1 A Warning signs (which may match against yours later). Tell me if you need some missing signs there and I'll try to prioritize the filling.--Papou (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

school_crossing or school vs playing_children vs children

I suggest to join school_crossing and playing_children into one children as the nature of hazard is the same. --Vovanium 08:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about that, because

• school_crossing is almost what could be used to tag one kind of Proposed_features/trafficzone that the Belgian code calls Abords d'école, in English and in order of preference school_zone, school_neighbourhood (abord) or simply school. It is a wider scope that just a crossing, but please note that if you add that tag to highway=crossing, then you have your school_crossing back.
• playing_children on the other hand corresponds to another kind of Proposed_features/trafficzone that the Belgian code calls rue réservée aux jeux, in English dedicated to play (at times), indicated by a timed C3 sign with a mention that is exactly playing_children

--Papou (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Related with this, the proposal talks about hazard=playing_children but what we actually have in use is very different from this:

hazard=playing_children	hazard=children

It seems that something needs to be better discussed and/or explained? --naoliv (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are children a hazard? What harm do they do? --Polarbear w (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Children are unpredictable and can get in front of the car out of nowhere (with a risk of being hit); the driver needs to aware of this and act quickly if needed. It's this road sign in Brazil and it seems to be this one in Germany. --naoliv (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

dangerous junctions / unspecified dangers

IMHO dangerous_junction does not need any further work as there is already a road sign explaining this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Zeichen_102.svg hazard=dangerous_junction should be set on junction nodes where this sign is placed. --Bot47 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that sign called just "junction with priority to the right" and not "dangerous junction"? Here it's literally "equal [priority] junction". At least here it's just used in places where motorists on the other road don't reasonably expect the crossing road not to have yield signs - not that the intersection would in itself be dangerous. Some intersections have, or did have, a separate sign "other danger" ( the exclamation mark in a triangle) with a textual sign below stating "dangerous intersection" - but most if not all of such intersections have been improved and the signs removed. Which doesn't mean they couldn't be tagged, but not as "dangerous". Alv 10:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should also be possible to tag dangers without warning signs. Such as "known dangerous intersection" (e.g. according to accident statistics); Hole in the middle of the road (assuming it is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon); etc. There was an abandoned proposal to use the hazard tag for those too. Jbohmdk 11:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have sometimes seen that sign A51 without additional text. We cannot foresee all texts. Isn't a hazard=unspecified useful (watch_out ? ;-))

In Belgium, they play a game consisting of removing the signs that corresponded to natural priority, making it unnatural and dangerous, in order, they say, to calm traffic and increase security (?) --Papou (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Animal crossing

I like the general idea. Can the "moose" value be abstracted to "animal_crossing", or is there a good reason to know that a moose might cross as opposed to a deer? The dangerous junction hazard may need more work, for example some junctions are dangerous for cyclists but not motorists (then again maybe everybody should take care at those junctions!) TomChance 17:56, 18 August 2007 (BST)

The whole Belgium agrees and they call it "wild animals crossing" (but in 4 other languages). "wild" is probably a welcome precision --Papou (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

An abstracted "animal_crossing" could work just fine. I got an request to add deer (and polar bear), but the general idea is just to tag stretch of road where animals are known to cross. The dangerous junction hazard is not important to me, I was added just to start a brainstorm of appropriate traffic-signs to include --Espen 13:09, 20 August 2007 (BST)

How about using hazard=animal_crossing and if you want it more specific also add animal_crossing=bear,kangaroo,deer ... the more detail, the better :) S.A.L. 14:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer a general "animal crossing". Else we would have to introduce MANY different types: elephants, moose, hare, frogs, ... Thomas P 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that one at least needs to distinguish between "large heavy animals" (moose/elk/kangaroo/elephants will often destroy car and/or kill motorist if hit), "small animals" (foxes/hares/frogs/dogs/chicken may slightly damage car, but only kill driver if swerving too much) and "dangerous animals" (polar bears/lions/alligators may actively attack humans causing serious harm). Jbohmdk 11:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Toxic Plants

There are several species of plants which are dangerously toxic, and their location can be documented. For example the Hippomane genus includes several species of trees, which are dangerous in many ways. Map each of them as a node, having natural=tree and add the hazard=toxic_plant. The East-European Stalin's revenge is a hard-to-eradicate shrub, which should be mapped as an area, and it would be advisable for people living in the area, to review the extension of the area and if necessary to update it. Tag the way as natural=scrub and add the same hazard=toxic_plant. In both cases, you would add the scientific name of the plant species, for example as species=Heracleum sosnowskyi, or genus=Hippomane.

other

I need this kind of sign for I have at least one road of this kind here: de:"261: Verbot für kennzeichnungspflichtige Kraftfahrzeuge mit gefährlichen Gütern" ( Souroce: Wikipedia:de Traffic Signs ) Thomas P 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a hazmat=* for it, as it is not hazard itself but restriction on vehicles carrying hazardous materials. --Vovanium 08:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to add contamination as a generic tag for any chemical, radioactive or biological dangerous area (found 2 today) --SunCobalt 08:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides road hazards, other hazards exist as well, such as hazards to cyclists, hikers, beach-goers, swimmers, scuba divers, etc. For example, a sign at the Pot Alley Gorge beach (Kalbarri, Western Australia) warns visitors that conditions on this beach can be treacherous and that "people have died here". Similarly, a sign at the start of The Loop Trail in Kalbarri National Park warns that "hikers have died on this trail", not to "walk the trail in hot weather", to carry at least 4 L of water per person per day, to "wear a hat and sturdy footwear", to walk the trail in company only, and to "be prepared and know your limits". -- sb 5:07, 5 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's a good idea to also consider risk of falling, which would probably apply to most of the Bolivian road of death.--Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Falling should be included, not just in Bolivia but in many other countries with mountain areas, there is a significant amount of roads with just 1 lane wide unpaved and in the edges of cliff and landslides prone areas, so falling is a must - User:JJIglesias 2018-09-24

I wanted to chime in here. I am looking at using OSM data for creating maps tailored for travellers in remote areas (I'm interested in australia, but it could apply to other remote areas too).

I think that a hazard warning of some kind is a very good idea, but I think it should be far more general than just cycling / driving hazards.

Just a few potentially life-threatening hazards I can think of:

1. crocodiles. it would be great to be able to tag a river / waterhole with 'crocodiles! no camping/swimming!'
2. in northern australia there are box jellyfish. I would like to tag large coastal areas with 'box jellyfish oct-feb! no swimming!'
3. in places like chernobyl, bikini atoll, trinity test site: 'warning: radiation'
4. various places in the world: 'warning: land mines!'
5. toxic water (e.g algae infestations, arsenic-filled ponds in abandoned mines) should be marked 'no swimming / drinking'

This information can save lives.