[Tagging] Estimated values for height
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 10:01:25 UTC 2018
Am So., 11. Nov. 2018 um 12:17 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <smz at smz.it>:
> Hello everybody,
> I'm the one who, in the Italian mailing list, first brought out the issue
> about how to tag estimated heights (*in our context it was about trees
> My first proposal has been to use a new sub-key in which to store
> estimated values, as in "height:estimated=10".
> Then I saw, here, the proposal of using "source:height=estimated", which
> is in use (*1543 entries, mostly applied to ways: see: *), which I
> thought was a better solution then the one I originally conceived.
> Now I see that there is a different solution in use,
> "height:source=estimated", which is less used (*149 entries, mostly
> applied to ways: see: *), but *makes even more sense to me, from a
> syntactical point of view*.
> Someone also proposed to use "height:accuracy=*" if the accuracy is known,
> but I think this could be used for an estimated value too
> (height:accuracy=estimated). On the other hand this doesn't seems to be in
> use anywhere even though it might be considered an even better solution
> both syntactically and semantically (*I think "source" should be used to
> identify "who" is the originator of the information*).
> In any case I think the various est_(width|length|height|whatever) keys
> should be deprecated and a new universal solution to identify estimated
> values should be adopted, taken from the ones described above (*or a new
> one I'm not thinking of** at this time*)*.*
I believe there is way too much fuzz about this, almost every number in OSM
is estimated, the height of a tree cannot be measured to the mm even with
the most precise instruments (and even if you could, it would be outdated
within the same day). Just add the height.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging