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 <[email protected]> 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 > > -- > [email protected] > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
