[Tagging] Key:visibility

Paul Desgranges paul.desgranges at gmail.com
Wed Nov 30 20:57:26 UTC 2016


Thank you for your comments. I've tried to take them into account at 
best. It won't be perfect, but at least it enables to extend the scope 
of 'visibility' tag (which was once only for clocks), to other devices. 
Moreover by keeping the three existing values ( 'house', 'street', 
'area' ) and just explaining them better, we don't take much risks of 
compatibility. If no absolute disagreement, we should keep this for this 
round maybe and  not spend to much more time on this. Thxs again

*visibility=** is used for publicly visible devices or features to 
evaluate the scope of their visibility

-*visibility=house* : visible from the pavement, or up to 10 meters 
(around), or to indicate that the device is targeted mostly for pedestrians.
-*visibility=street* : visible from the current street, or from between 
10 m and 50 m (around), or to indicate that the device is targeted to 
passers-by moving with vehicles going slowly.
-*visibility=area* : visible from several directions, or from more than 
50 m (around), or to indicate that the device is targeted to passers-by 
moving with vehicles going fast.

On 29/11/2016 12:12, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2016-11-29 11:10] Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>> 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).
> You are right. It should be about distance, not about position nor
> speed.
> Maybe that's the aspect that I don't like about the value ``street''
> (although my suggested values were no better ;-) ): It indicates
> position.
> If you talk about scale then a set of ``house_scale'',
> ``street_scale'', ``district_scale'' or so could become universal
> scale specifiers to be used in other situations as well. (Here I
> would tend to use ``house_scale'' instead of ``building_scale'',
> because buildings can be really large -- as large as streets --
> whereas houses are usually within a quite limited size range.)
> meillo
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161130/5982f66d/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list