Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it
would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more
is specific such as "compacted", "earth", "sand" or "clay" is even
better). The editors help you with that by providing a list of common
surface values, you should simply try to stay away from paved/unpaved,
ground and dirt and only pick one of those when you can't decide which
of the others is a better value. Sometimes it's really impossible or
it would take too long to decide on a better value (say, if you're
covering a large area at once).
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote:
> On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value)
>> and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
>> acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
>> low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
>> rendering of detailed surface maps. They both hardly mean something
>> significantly different from "unpaved" (for most practical
>> applications I can think of).
>>
> i generally try to combine surface={dirt|gravel} with a value for
> tracktype, if that helps at all.
>
> richard
>
> --
> rwe...@averillpark.net
> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409
"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
