[Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality

[Dan S]

Hi -

Yes, it's useful to go beyond lit=yes and lit=no. Some of those
suggestions such as "poor" and "sufficient" are too subjective, as I
think you already acknowledge. Not only are they value judgments but
they depend on the user's perspective and needs, so please do try to
avoid them.

Some of the existing values, rarely used, are "indirect", "partial",
"sparsely", "limited". It would be nice if we could grow some
consensus on useful values to use. In my experience sparse lighting is
common (and very different from full street lighting). One
possibility: something like lit=0.5 for a highway which is lit
sparsely (or light is obstructed) so that it is effectlvely lit along
50% of its length...?!

Best
Dan


2015-01-16 20:27 GMT+00:00 Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:
> The light sources' positions often have little to do with the real
> illumination effect.
> In many cases, in my city, cycle paths (in reality they all are mixed-use
> pedestrian and bicycle with priority by law to pedestrians) have been
> produced by converting former sidewalks. The lamp posts are those installed
> for street illumination and often are interspersed with street-side trees.
> Hence the effective illumination on the foot-cycle path is patchy. The only
> way to judge it is to cycle by night and see.
> The reason why this comes up now is that we want to map the cycling
> infrastructure as it really is, with the aim of producing the data for a
> critical map of the cyclability of Padova. All other parameters are already
> taggable, the illumination quality not yet.
>
>
> On 16 January 2015 at 20:14, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 01/16/2015 06:18 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> > This is unfortunately a thorny issue, as there is no easy way to measure
>> > in an objective way the quality of the illumination.
>>
>> Indeed. I would suggest mapping the individual light sources instead.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>