[Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

Felix Hartmann extremecarver at gmail.com
Fri Mar 13 11:59:50 UTC 2015

Yes it's easier to understand. But the praxis clearly showed that if we
have verbal grading - then the quality is much much worse. I love the
intention of smoothness - but in real life the verbal descriptors make it
very hard to argue to use it in a map. Not because it is off by +-1 but
because in 10-15% of cases I've seen the worse values used, they were plain
wrong. (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible).

On the other hand tracktype seems to be used pretty consistently. It may be
off bei +-1, but usually no more.

And with smoothness and other verbal gradings - 10-15% of all ratings seem
to be way off because the mapper never read/understood that scale. This in
turn makes it impossible to be used in a map because it is too unreliable.

On 13 March 2015 at 11:09, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 13/03/2015 7:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> Hi!
> 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <dbannon at internode.on.net>:
>> > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't
>> like the values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than
>> "bad".
>> But Martin, its not a "good" or "bad" situation, thats the point. Some
>> people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth
>> is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be
>> smooth all the way ?
> That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the
> values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that
> "good" means smoother than "bad". But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5?
>  And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the
> values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-)
>  And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact
> meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use
> the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values
> correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more
> appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with
> smoothness=grade97, because a "good smoothness" will have a much wider
> common understanding than "smoothness=31415whatever".
>  Best regards,
>  Martin
>  P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this
> mailing list ;-)
> I'm for verbal description rather than a number - easier to understand.
> If I come across a road marked 'smoothness=medium' and later come across a
> road with worse smoothness I can see which way to go with the verbal value,
> if the value was a simple number I'd nave no idea..and may skip the data
> entry due to time limits, laziness and added complexity.
> Some decades ago I looked at road classifications .. for 'off road'
> vehicles, I was after erosion problems at the time ... I think there may be
> some classification system for smoothness .. certainly there was for the
> load bearing of a terrain. Some US military publication had some tech data
> in it .. amonst some 40 odd publications I skimmed through at the time.
> Might try to look that up? Depends on how easy it is to find it in the
> library catalogue ... it is better than google .. but they have a different
> system of course.
> ------------------------
> Photos help ... but I'd like some word guidance too.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
Floragasse 9/11
1040 Wien
Austria - Österreich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150313/a5b3d291/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list