+1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David <[email protected]> wrote:
> "I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.." > > I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my > experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or > track. It does really need to be looked at in context, the issues averaged > out by eye. One, or even a set of snapshots just does not cut it ! > > And talking of issues, last time this discussion came up, from memory, we > identified about 20 separate issues that might need to be considered. So > lets not talk about trying to identify measurables. > > The smoothness tag, as described, already takes the right direction, it > tries to judge the usability of the road. And, honestly, thats what people > want to know ! > > Lets improve it with better values, sure a heap of photos if thats what > people want. But clear words that describe just what sort of vehicle could > traverse the road. > > So, questions, for better values, numerical or verbal ? > > Is it acceptable for a tag to have two, parallel sets of values, why not ? > > If we can get past there, we can then look for more descriptive sets of > words.... > > David > > > > . > > Janko Mihelić <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the > community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something > entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground. > > When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to > be grade3, and then you can be sure that's the right value. > > Janko > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
