Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask people
to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for one or more
of -
1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype.
2. Words that describe the smoothness -
glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted ....
3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it -
Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle,
none.
Don't fuss over the actual values i have quoted, i am sure we can do better.
But you can see the differing emphasis. In every case, assume we can/will have
a good description behind each value. Or not ?
It might also be worthwhile indicating how strong you feel about your choice.
I'd prefer #1, #3 then, if i must, #2. 2 assumes too much about what makes the
road difficult.
David
.
Martin Vonwald <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <[email protected]>:
>
>> > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like
>> the values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad".
>>
>> But Martin, its not a "good" or "bad" situation, thats the point. Some
>> people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth
>> is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be
>> smooth all the way ?
>>
>
>That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the
>values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that
>"good" means smoother than "bad". But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5?
>
>And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values
>actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-)
>
>And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact meaning
>and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use the
>values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values
>correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more
>appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with
>smoothness=grade97, because a "good smoothness" will have a much wider
>common understanding than "smoothness=31415whatever".
>
>Best regards,
>Martin
>
>P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this mailing
>list ;-)
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
