[OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki "map features"
mattwhite at iinet.net.au
Mon Dec 1 10:39:50 GMT 2008
Douglas Furlong wrote:
> 2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net
> <mailto:richard at systemed.net>>
> so you'd get
> foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
> bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical)
> bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging)
> bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem)
> This feels like a far more suitable solution, than smoothness (and Ice
> rink is smooth, but I doubt a racing bike would have much fun on it!).
> Having an additional rating per mode of transport seems to make
> substantially more sense.
> I believe some one else (Matt White) has recently posted a comment,
> wanting to know about a 4WD tag, to suggest that only 4WD vehicles
> would be suitable. The above approach could easily (and more
> importantly) and clearly indicate this.
> For me one of the biggest problems with "smoothness" (other than it
> being a terrible name), is that it is a generic tag, and we keep on
> seeing issues being raised where "generic tags" are not suitable for
> specialist hobbies/areas. We shouldn't be looking to add to this issue.
I had a go on the smoothness talk page to simplify the tag somewhat.
Something along the lines of a simplified 3 tag scope (eg: normal,
bumpy, rough - or whatever prettier equivalents), where the smoothness
tag refers to the default vehicle type (I guess car for the main highway
tags, bike for cycleway, horse for bridle way - you get the picture).
This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle types easily
- a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be
smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the tertiary
smoothness:racing_bicycle=rough (or unsuitable)
smoothness:tank=normal (or even "glass like" :-)
I don't personally like the term "smoothness" either, but I've yet to
find a decent alternative ("surface" would be nice, but 'tis taken).
The 4WD proposal (plug:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only) is a
little bit separate. It could be taken into account using some sort of
smoothness, track type, surface, take your pick, but I am specifically
looking at tracks that are actually signed as 4WD only, to be rendered
with a nice bit of text at the end of the road name to make it obvious
what is 4WD only (most decent AU maps of hte country side have explicit
4WD tags of those roads that require it). Good for routing and the like
(where the relative smoothness can be a bit subjective)
More information about the talk