It would not be that hard to add a precision to a measurement. Any measurement. Maybe there already is a standard method for that?
Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 17 aug. 2018 om 20:50 heeft SelfishSeahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven: > >> On Friday, August 17, 2018, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: >> On Friday 17 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote: >> >> > Of course we could just use width=*, but it's not always easily >> > possible to measure the width (e.g. in a forest) and sometimes it >> > changes often. >> >> I would translate this into "i want a subjective non-verifiable >> classification system but i hide this by defining pro forma verifiable >> criteria for the classes". > > A classification based on width is arbitrary, but i don't see why it be > subjective. > >> If you want to map the river width tag width=*, if you don't want to map >> the width then don't create classes based on width thresholds. > > Imagine a stream/brook in a forest, not visible on satellite imagery. You > can't measure its width on site (because you don't have the equipment or > because the soil at its sides is marshy), but you know (estimate) that it's > wider than 1 metre, but less wide than 3 metres. In my opinion it's better to > have that information that none. > > If you enter width="1 m - 3 m", data users very likely won't understand it. > However if you enter width="2 m", the width value pretends to be exact. > Besides it is very unlikely that someone else verifies that value, > considering the fact that less than 1% of waterway=* tags have a width=* tag. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
