+1 On 14/03/15 08:20, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > "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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi! > > 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing > list [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
-- Twitter: http://twitter.com/ravilacoya -------------------------------- Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer, non os abro. Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Tipos_de_ficheros _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
