<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-unicode">
<p>I missed the existence of "<i>metric</i>:source".</p>
<p>At first sight (my <i>guesstimate</i>...) it is not much used
(<i>46 times it is associated to "width", 0 times with "length",
and 413 times with "heigth"</i>), but it is actually used with
that meaning (<i>the most used value is "estimated"</i>), and it
could be a viable solution.</p>
<p>On the other hand I think that "source" is not the first thing
(<i>word</i>) you think of (<i>I didn't...</i>) when you think
of something to indicate the accuracy (<i>or lack thereof...</i>)
of a measurement.</p>
<p>Even more, if you happen to know the accuracy of a measurement
(<i>e.g: having taken into account the precision/bias of your
instrument, mediated on "n" measurements and computed the
standard deviation</i>), with metric:accuracy=* you can
indicate its actual accuracy. If you "<i>eyeballed</i>" or, as
we say in Italy, "<i>measured by spans</i>", you could instead
indicate metric:accuracy=estimated.<br>
</p>
<p>"metric:source", I think, should be more used to indicate the
instrument used (e.g. length:source= Bosch GLM 50 C) or the
official source of a measurement (e.g.: height:source=ESA).</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-11-13 21:58, Nick Bolten
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAF0zbxWCv=xVQTEDkhRB6febu0w=7JyTgPfueYeoU38GothArg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">I like the ideas using height:source or
height:accuracy, but want to point out that they could imply
different things.
<div><br>
</div>
...
<div><br>
</div>
<div>tl;dr: I really like metric:source=*.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>