Hello! On 2018-11-13 21:19, OSMDoudou wrote: > What’s the fundamental difference (and thus main benefit ?) between > measure:accuracy, accuracy:measure or est_height ? They’re all telling that > the given height is an estimate within an undisclosed interval of confidence?
The difference is purely grammatical (/in the context of "programming/data-definition linguistic"/) and only one of the two should be adopted. Personally I lean towards the first form (/measure/:accuracy=*) > I wonder if it’s not.better to accept that *any* measure is an estimate, and > let mappers improve the accuracy, just like the drawing of a highway can be a > poor or a great estimate, which improves over time as imagery or traces > permit improvement. About this, please read my previous post about "/guesstimating/". It is anyway obvious that mappers have, in the past, felt the need to have a way to indicate measures only roughly taken. They did it by introducing the various est_* tags (e.g. see: [1] and [2]) and have been instructed to do that in the wiki (e.g.: see "Estimated values" in [3]). > Even if the imagery is of great precision, it’s not a guarantee of.accuracy, > as the mapper might be in a hurry or might not particularly care for > accuracy, and leave to its successors to improve it. This is by far beyond the scope of the current discussion/proposal and, I think, strongly related to Murphy's law [4]. Cheers! Sergio [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/est_width [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/est_height [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
