On 06/07/19 20:47, Ferdinand Schicke wrote:
What I couldsee work would be to have additional lit=* values like
lit=weak or lit=spillover or lit=10lux
I tired to use my mobile phone to gauge the amount of night light .. it
did not work very well at all!
lit=weak is too subjective.
I too would leave lit alone. Either it is lit or it is not.
If you need some measure of 'lit' then I suggest if a map (OSM
reference) cannot be read by the present light level then it is not lit.
*From: *Mateusz Konieczny <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Samstag, 6. Juli 2019 12:26
*To: *Tagging <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *[Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold
Some cases of lit=yes are clear (direct lighting of street/footway by
lamps)
Some cases of lit=no are clear (no lighting whatsoever)
But in cities there is also often strong or weak ambient light, for
example:
- carriageway is directly lit with so powerful light that spillover light
makes footway well lit - clearly lit=yes
- spillover light is quite dim but enough to comfortably walk - also
lit=yes
- there is some ambient light, but not enough to walk without own
source of light - lit=no
- there is an ambient light, one can carefully walk, but only slowly,
people with poor eyesight needs their own source of light - lit=no (?)
Overall, I am considering adding to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lit
recommendation to consider "is it necessary to bring your own light
source to see it properly"
as recommended threshold for footways/paths.
Any problems with that or ideas for a better threshold between lit=yes
and lit=no?
disclaimer: I am trying to make lit=yes/no definition more precise as
part of my grant
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/368849
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
