[Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Sat Mar 14 07:20:50 UTC 2015

"Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype." - exchanges
old problem for a new one,
at huge cost and with no benefit.

"glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted ...." - will have the same problems
as current values, plus no
clear progression of values (maybe there is for native speakers), also
"glassy" sounds like "too smooth",
plus conversion cost

"Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle,
none." - to quote
Jan "a stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a
motorcycle and vice versa".
Though separate tagging for vehicle types is probably a good idea - but it
requires no change for values.

So - I am against any of proposed changes.

2015-03-14 4:00 GMT+01:00 David <dbannon at internode.on.net>:

> Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask
> people to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for
> one or more of -
> 1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype.
> 2. Words that describe the smoothness -
> glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted ....
> 3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it -
> Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle,
> none.
> Don't fuss over the actual values i have quoted, i am sure we can do
> better. But you can see the differing emphasis. In every case, assume we
> can/will have a good description behind each value. Or not ?
> It might also be worthwhile indicating how strong you feel about your
> choice.
> I'd prefer #1, #3 then, if i must, #2. 2 assumes too much about what makes
> the road difficult.
> David
> .
> Martin Vonwald <imagic.osm at gmail.com> 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 ;-)
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150314/541d0522/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list