[Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett & paving_stones
richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 13:45:49 GMT 2012
The problem is that setts are often referred to as cobbles, in common
parlance. If someone tags something as cobbles, I'd probably reckon they
were actually setts 99% of the time.
http://g.co/maps/bnndk The stuff in the road is cobbles; in the gutter and
on the pavements is setts.
So having a clear setts/cobbles (illustrated) distinction is good, but I
wouldn't rely on it. A warning to data users is probably wise.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Bennett <
openstreetmap at jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Is it consensus to use "sett" instead of "cobblestones" for most of
>> the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with
> How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap
>> to distinguish on a finer granularity between different pavings?
> You shouldn't be using "sett" instead of "cobblestones" in any case,
> because they're not the same thing. My understanding is that cobblestones
> are irregular stones, used in pretty much their natural state for paving,
> whereas setts are specifically shaped, brick-sized pieces of rock (granite
> in the case of Guildford High Street, where I live) that form a smoother
> surface (but not as smooth as a metalled road).
> Paving stones, I'd venture, are another class again, where they can either
> genuinely be flat stones or cast material, but larger than setts or
> cobblestones, perhaps over 50cm.
> In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and
> non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think
> surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging