[Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality

[Warin]

On 20/01/2015 6:55 PM, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:55:37 +0100
> From: Volker Schmidt<voschix at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALQ-OR5qskwpUmdoXQ0HjyrrcEgKuZOj_j9tEB-jgxiyhX6Kbg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> As I said earlier, I am also a hobby photographer. The light levels we are
> talking about are anyway in a range that old-fashioned hand-held light
> meters are useless.

Went out last night .. light level pointing up to street light was 0.0 
lux... so less than 0.1 lux. Meaning I could not measure it this way. 
I'll think about it. A talk to an expert might be worth while?
>
> As I said earlier,  I am also a physicist and hate using a scale, expressed
> in numbers, if I have no way of defining what each level means. Therefore
> guessing the intensity and then putting in a scale 1 ... 10 (to make it
> look precise) is out for me.
>
> On the other hand as a cyclist I know very well if the illumination of a
> cyclepath at night is none (no lamps at all) or poor or normal or excellent
> (or whatever verbal scale you invent). So I will try, at least locally such
> an approach. And in order not to upset things I will use the
> lit=yes
> lit:level=poor|sufficient|good
> approach
>
> Volker


Lord Kelvin “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and 
express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot 
express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory 
kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in 
your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

The suggested tag lit:poor|sufficient|good is subjective - you will get 
different answers from different people.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150121/d4cd861e/attachment.html>