[Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

[Rafael Avila Coya]

+1

On 14/03/15 08:20, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> "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 
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:imagic.osm at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <dbannon at internode.on.net 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org> 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing
> list Tagging at openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 

-- 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ravilacoya

--------------------------------

Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls,
.xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer,  non os abro.

Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Tipos_de_ficheros