On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > On 22.01.2018 17:25, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> - sett: hewn stones with flat top (...) [2] (...)> - cobblestone: hewn >> stones with slightly arched top (...) images [3] > and [4] > > I don't believe requiring mappers to make a distinction between these > two is a good idea. Let's look at your images: > >> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ec/Dscf1641-800.jpg >> [3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Kasseien.jpg >> [4] > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Guzow-oryszew_road_cm03.jpg > > If I read your mail correctly, you suggest that [3] and [4] belong in > the same category, while [2] is a fundamentally different surface type. > > But when I look at these, [2] and [3] feel a lot more similar to each > other than [4] is to either of them.
[2] and [3] are similar according to the layout pattern (regular, cuboid stones), whereas [3] and [4] are similar according to their usability by various modes of travel (car, bicycle, foot - shoes, foot - high heels). This is because in [2] the stones are mostly flat, whereas in [3] and in [4] they are slightly arched. Having an arched top (but not as round as [6]) has been pointed out as a distinctive character by both British [9][10] and German [11] mappers. [9] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681311#p681311 [10] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681502#p681502 [11] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681773#p681773 -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "Nullius in verba." _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
