<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/05/2015 12:19, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABPTjTAdPyG7wf==pGckeiwQJATrDvgWm3xGu7CzFFY=oOFKyQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-05-11 18:14 GMT+02:00 Volker
Schmidt <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:voschix@gmail.com" target="_blank">voschix@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>I only now, after having lived for many years
in the UK, I realise that the definition of gravel
is wider than the equivalent of the German Splitt.
I thought them equivalent.<br>
<br>
</div>
Looking it up in the English Wikipedia I found
contradictory information.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
In <br>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road"
target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road</a><br>
</div>
"gravel" is "crushed stone" and raoughly aequivalent to
the German Splitt<br>
<br>
</div>
But in <br>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel"
target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel</a><br>
</div>
"gravel" is more generic and can, for example, also be
pebbles of different sizes.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br clear="all">
from my researches it seemed that gravel was completely
different to Splitt and wouldn't contain it. But I now have
looked at yet another dictionary and it seems to be included
(because "pounded" is likely a synonym for "crushed" here):<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gravel">http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gravel</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">So my conclusion is that gravel can be
either naturally worn or crushed stone and is about the grain
size. Please note that "Splitt" is only appropriate for
crushed stone, otherwise you would have to use "Kies"
(pebbles).<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd agree that "it's all about the grain size". The wikipedia page*
that's already been linked mentions the Krumbein scale that I
vaguely remember from college.<br>
<br>
When tagging surfaces in OSM I personally try not to use too many
different values - if there's something vaguely appropriate in the
top entries here I'd use that:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/surface#values">http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/surface#values</a><br>
<br>
note that that's the .org.uk taginfo not the .org one - there have
been relatively few imports and mechanical edits there so it's a
better representation of "what the surveying mapper actually
tagged", though a similar country taginfo for a country with few
imports and mechanical edits should do just as well.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_size">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_size</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>