Proposal:Snowshed
| Snowshed | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Proposals without post-vote cleanup |
| Proposed by: | Rw |
| Tagging: | snowshed=yes/opposite/1/-1 |
| Applies to: | way |
| Definition: | A structure that protects a highway or railway from avalanche. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | similar to a tunnel, or even similar to a cross between a tunnel and a cliff to show directionality. |
| Draft started: | |
| Proposed on: | 2009-02-28 |
| RFC start: | 2010-03-05 |
| Vote start: | 2010-03-14 |
| Vote end: | 2010-03-28 |
This proposal is coordinated by user Kslotte, with permission from the original author.
Summary
A Snow shed or avalanche shed is a structure that protects a highway or railway from avalanche damage.
The proposal (vote for yes)
This proposal suggests to tag snow sheds on a way (usually with highway=* or railway=*) with snowshed=yes or snowshed=opposite. Snow sheds have a natural uphill and downhill side. Following natural=cliff, it is proposed that the uphill side of a snow shed be on the left of the way.
Alternative tagging (vote for no)
An alternative tagging is to use covered=yes (already approved map feature) and don't approve snowshed=*. According to discussion this alternative has gain support.
The use case for covered=yes is: A. denote that a highway, railway, pedestrian way or waterway passes under a building or other structure, where it is inappropriate to use layering as the differentiator between covered and uncovered. or where "covered" will more clearly define the condition.
Reasoning
Snow sheds are distinct from tunnels and important in cold, mountainous terrain. The ongoing import of Canadian data includes snow shed information. OpenStreetMap should embrace the noble snow shed, as we would welcome a St. Bernard with a cask of brandy at our chalet during a snowfall.
Appearance
To be determined.
Voting
Voting has started, 2010-03-14:
- Vote "yes" for approve this proposal where snow sheds are tagged with snowshed=yes or snowshed=opposite.
- Vote "no" for usage of the already approved feature covered=yes.
Votes here:
I oppose this proposal, but not because I prefer the alternative. I would say that that covered=yes should be used on the way being covered, but the snowshed itself should represented as an area overlapping the way, rather than by tagging on the way itself. I'd suggest something like man_made=snowshed on the area. Rjw62 18:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Same reason as Rjw62. For the road it is redundant with covered. But, tagging an area as a snowshed would be added information. --turbodog 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. snowshed=* is sort of limited use, covered=* seems to be a broader meaning, and can be used for other reasons than just snow, I've seen examples where the reason for the cover are rock spring from sheer mountain cliffs. --Skippern 02:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. covered=yes is not so usable for navigation in the mountain as it resembles tunnel=yes that is clearly different. But I don't like it being directional. What is wrong withe snowshead=yes, snowshead=left and snowshead=right? There are many snowsheads in the centre of the valley with no clearly upward direction.
- I oppose this proposal. I'd like to see this tagged on it's own (separate area or way) and on it's real position not on a street. For covered streets use covered=* and add some additional tag to describe the snow-protecting function. -- Dieterdreist 12:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I prefer the additional attribute from railway=rail to be covered=yes By definition Wikipedia:Show shed is ".. a structure that provides avalanche protection for roads and railroad tracks." As it is a 'structure', with the implied 'cover from snow', the attribute "covered=yes" should be sufficient. --acrosscanadatrails 15:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I prefer "covered=yes" for the same raison that Skippern refers to. Actually the same reasoning could be applied to covered bridge where a structure is built over to protect user from rain - hundred years ago ! --Snowman 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I prefer "covered=yes". Perhaps additional right hand side values on covered would add some clarity, but a separate tag seems unneeded. Nfgusedautoparts 17:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I prefer "covered=yes". /al 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I prefer "covered=yes". -- Delta foxtrot2 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting has ended 2010-03-28. The votes are 10 opposed and 1 approval. The result is rejected.