"Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype." - exchanges old problem for a new one, at huge cost and with no benefit.
"glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted ...." - will have the same problems as current values, plus no clear progression of values (maybe there is for native speakers), also "glassy" sounds like "too smooth", plus conversion cost "Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none." - to quote Jan "a stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a motorcycle and vice versa". Though separate tagging for vehicle types is probably a good idea - but it requires no change for values. So - I am against any of proposed changes. 2015-03-14 4:00 GMT+01:00 David <[email protected]>: > 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
