Waldo, you suggest that people mapping dirt roads (and others?) need to record every relevant characteristic of that road. If I was employing mappers to do that, i could write their KPIs and call them into my office every three months and discuss progress, it might work. It would have to be, of course, global. But frankly, Waldo, thats not going to happen.
Mappers will map because they enjoy doing it. They are not going to fill in a table with twenty columns for every road and, even if they did, I suspect you would find unholy subjectiveness in most of those columns anyway ! Far better we document a number of broad categories, most people with any off road experience will quickly recognise those categories and use them. I suggest you stick to your idea way of doing things, if you can make it work I will be thrilled. I don't think either of us are going to convince the other . But in the mean time, we need a solution to a real problem. For those who believe in the category model, please look at the comments on the Australian Guidelines page. I still think an extension to tracktype= is the way to go. But happy to look at any practical alternative. Much of the arguments documented on my wiki page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo David . [email protected] wrote: >> >> 4wd tracks ? There are simply too many factors at play here for us to >> measure, should we measure the height or spacing of corrugations, the >> 'softness' of sand, the depth of run outs, the narrowness, the slope, the >> wetness of the mud, the effect of weather on the track ? > > >Well, what information did the mapper gather in order to judge its >suitability? Did the mapper notice the width(/narrowness) of the track? If >so, enter it. Did the mapper notice the maximum depth of run outs? If so, >enter it. Did the mapper notice something else? Enter it. Alternatively, >did the mapper follow a clearly laid out specification on the wiki of what >"suitability" means, in terms of the above factors? If so, follow the >objective procedure in the wiki to enter the "suitability" as a summary >that still has a clear meaning. That is the compromise I'm suggesting. > >Even if we could, how could the average map user possibly comprehend the >> data ? >> > >If the objective information is directly entered, it is straightforward >(e.g. width=*)! If it is entered in the form of some summary tag (e.g. >suitability=*), it is harder. The user would need to look up what that >means in the wiki. If the wiki description is vague, they have no hope of >comprehending what the tag indicates. > >Again, I say, we need to put data in there that is likely to be usable. > > >Agreed. Usable by applications like renderers, routers, search engines, etc. > > >> In this case, the user wants advice on should they use the track in >> question. >> > >The end user, yes. But the map should not DIRECTLY offer advice, because >advice is a function of the map that we all must share (i.e. representing >the state of the world on the ground) PLUS a user's preferences. There's no >sense muddling the two up when entering tags. > >Compare that to the alternative, no information, a map user assumes every >> track shown is suitable for them to drive ! Dangerous indeed. >> > >That's a straw man argument. The alternative is entering observable facts, >either directly or in the form of summary tags with objective definitions >in the wiki. I'm really only repeating what has already been said here - >please read it if you haven't yet: >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
