[Tagging] How to tag small canals?
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Aug 18 08:33:38 UTC 2018
How are data consumers going to use the data ???
Not much point in it for them I'd think.
For mappers that come along later it may be a usefull guide for
comparison with their measurements.
But few mappers will be bothered entering it so I again don't see much
point.
I'd think tagging like
width:uncertainty=*
ele:uncertainty=*
etc
Or
uncertainty:width=*
uncertainty:ele=*
etc
might be the way to go?
The uncertainty coverage factor of 1 (or standard deviation for a
Gaussian distribution) could be stipulated as part of any documentation.
On 18/08/18 17:53, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Sure. But is there a standard method to indicate this uncertainty in
> OSM, which can be processed by data consumers?
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> Op 18 aug. 2018 om 01:35 heeft Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> What you are trying to refer to is 'measurement uncertainty'.
>>
>> For a non professional rough guide;
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_uncertainty
>>
>> Naturally formed water way widths may have a great deal of variation
>> along their widths .. and so the uncertainty will be very high unless
>> specified along short segments.
>>
>> On 18/08/18 09:11, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>> It would not be that hard to add a precision to a measurement. Any
>>> measurement. Maybe there already is a standard method for that?
>>>
>>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>>
>>> Op 17 aug. 2018 om 20:50 heeft SelfishSeahorse
>>> <selfishseahorse at gmail.com <mailto:selfishseahorse at gmail.com>> het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, August 17, 2018, Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de
>>>> <mailto:osm at imagico.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 17 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Of course we could just use width=*, but it's not always easily
>>>> > possible to measure the width (e.g. in a forest) and sometimes it
>>>> > changes often.
>>>>
>>>> I would translate this into "i want a subjective non-verifiable
>>>> classification system but i hide this by defining pro forma
>>>> verifiable
>>>> criteria for the classes".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A classification based on width is arbitrary, but i don't see why
>>>> it be subjective.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to map the river width tag width=*, if you don't
>>>> want to map
>>>> the width then don't create classes based on width thresholds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Imagine a stream/brook in a forest, not visible on satellite
>>>> imagery. You can't measure its width on site (because you don't
>>>> have the equipment or because the soil at its sides is marshy), but
>>>> you know (estimate) that it's wider than 1 metre, but less wide
>>>> than 3 metres. In my opinion it's better to have that information
>>>> that none.
>>>>
>>>> If you enter width="1 m - 3 m", data users very likely won't
>>>> understand it. However if you enter width="2 m", the width value
>>>> pretends to be exact. Besides it is very unlikely that someone else
>>>> verifies that value, considering the fact that less than 1% of
>>>> waterway=* tags have a width=* tag.
>>>> _______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180818/cbf4e4d8/attachment.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list