dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 10:10:53 UTC 2016
2016-11-29 7:02 GMT+01:00 markus schnalke <meillo at marmaro.de>:
> This is just like the smoothness=* case. Instead of having values
> like ``excellent'', ``bad'' or ``horrible'', we now learned that
> it is better to tag for what cases some smoothness is okay. The
> same here: You'll always need the explanations above if you use
> the values ``house'', ``street'' and ``area'', but you can get
> rid of them if you just use the explanations themselves:
> - visibility=for_walkers
> - visibility=for_slow_cars
> - visibility=for_fast_cars
I tend to disagree, the values you propose are more specific and not
universally applicable (this is not about speed, but about scale, these new
values would suggest to take into account other aspects like "visibility
from within a car on the street", not applicable in many cases).
I believe the originally proposed values are fine (besides the "house"
maybe"), they do give an indication about scale. I also think that
mentioning distances can generally be OK, given as an rough idea how to
read the values, but not as very strict limits. What is not OK are the
actual values: they seem off (too small) for what I believe is "street
scale", "area scale" or "within the building scale". It could also be
"small", "medium", "large" or "close", "medium distance", "far", but these
would give even less indication as to what scale it is about (they are
completely relative, without a point of reference, like street or building
do give), so the current proposal is better in that concern.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging