[Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold
bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com
Sat Jul 6 13:03:21 UTC 2019
In many parts of Hungary, vegetation can overshadow street lights,
especially if they are placed high enough. They may make efforts to
protect roads against this, but they rarely consider footways. Hence I
know a lot of streets where road illumination is fair, but the
sidewalk right beside it (maybe 1-2m from the road) is dark along the
majority of the road.
I also agree with Martin's definition of being lit and I usually do it
I don't split ways by the centimeter to specify illumination - if a
stretch of path has too many shadows, you need to bring your own
lights anyway, so I consider that not being lit.
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:39 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > On 6. Jul 2019, at 14:07, Tobias Zwick <osm at westnordost.de> wrote:
> > 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.)
> the presence of street lights indicates the road could be lit, it has no implications whether it is actually lit. For example last summer I went to an island where all streets had relatively new street lights, but half the island they kept them off so that light pollution was reduced.
> In small villages in Germany, street lights are often turned off at a certain time (e.g. after 23h), etc.
> Cheers, Martin
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging