[Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold

Tobias Zwick osm at westnordost.de
Sat Jul 6 12:07:03 UTC 2019

> I am trying to make lit=yes/no definition more precise

I think that your suggestions would make the definition actually less precise because they add a fair level of subjectiveness: "necessary to bring your own light"

The least subjective definition is to map the physical presence of street lanterns on the way, not the light they emit. (This definition (though) would mean that a footway close to a lit street would be mapped as unlit as long as it does not have own lanterns.)


On July 6, 2019 12:24:18 PM GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com> wrote:
>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
>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

More information about the Tagging mailing list