[Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Jul 6 11:39:47 UTC 2019
On 06/07/19 20:47, Ferdinand Schicke wrote:
> What I couldsee work would be to have additional lit=* values like
> lit=weak or lit=spillover or lit=10lux
I tired to use my mobile phone to gauge the amount of night light .. it
did not work very well at all!
lit=weak is too subjective.
I too would leave lit alone. Either it is lit or it is not.
If you need some measure of 'lit' then I suggest if a map (OSM
reference) cannot be read by the present light level then it is not lit.
> *From: *Mateusz Konieczny <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> *Sent: *Samstag, 6. Juli 2019 12:26
> *To: *Tagging <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject: *[Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold
> Some cases of lit=yes are clear (direct lighting of street/footway by
> Some cases of lit=no are clear (no lighting whatsoever)
> But in cities there is also often strong or weak ambient light, for
> - carriageway is directly lit with so powerful light that spillover light
> makes footway well lit - clearly lit=yes
> - spillover light is quite dim but enough to comfortably walk - also
> - there is some ambient light, but not enough to walk without own
> source of light - lit=no
> - there is an ambient light, one can carefully walk, but only slowly,
> people with poor eyesight needs their own source of light - lit=no (?)
> Overall, I am considering adding to
> recommendation to consider "is it necessary to bring your own light
> source to see it properly"
> as recommended threshold for footways/paths.
> Any problems with that or ideas for a better threshold between lit=yes
> and lit=no?
> disclaimer: I am trying to make lit=yes/no definition more precise as
> part of my grant
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging