[2016-11-29 11:10] Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > 2016-11-29 7:02 GMT+01:00 markus schnalke <mei...@marmaro.de>: > > This is just like the smoothness=* case. Instead of having values > like ``excellent'', ``bad'' or ``horrible'', we now learned that > it is better to tag for what cases some smoothness is okay. The > same here: You'll always need the explanations above if you use > the values ``house'', ``street'' and ``area'', but you can get > rid of them if you just use the explanations themselves: > > - visibility=for_walkers > - visibility=for_slow_cars > - visibility=for_fast_cars > > > I tend to disagree, the values you propose are more specific and not > universally applicable (this is not about speed, but about scale, these new > values would suggest to take into account other aspects like "visibility from > within a car on the street", not applicable in many cases).
You are right. It should be about distance, not about position nor speed. Maybe that's the aspect that I don't like about the value ``street'' (although my suggested values were no better ;-) ): It indicates position. If you talk about scale then a set of ``house_scale'', ``street_scale'', ``district_scale'' or so could become universal scale specifiers to be used in other situations as well. (Here I would tend to use ``house_scale'' instead of ``building_scale'', because buildings can be really large -- as large as streets -- whereas houses are usually within a quite limited size range.) meillo _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging