[OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki "map features"

Douglas Furlong douglas.furlong at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 11:24:02 GMT 2008


2008/12/1 Robert Vollmert <rvollmert-lists at gmx.net>

> 2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
>
>> Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend
>> the access tags:
>>
>> bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable
>>
>> so you'd get
>>
>> highway=bridleway
>> foot=yes (permitted, no problem)
>> bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical)
>> bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging)
>> bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem)
>>
>
> The obvious problem with this is the massive redundancy. You need to tag
> for every possible form of transport, or infer suitability for something
> exotic from the provided suitabilities.
>
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:09, Douglas Furlong wrote:
>
>> This feels like a far more suitable solution, than smoothness (and Ice
>> rink is smooth, but I doubt a racing bike would have much fun on it!).
>>
>
> Hurray for absurd arguments. Obviously, 'slippery=yes' is implied on
> ice rinks.
>
> I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit
> smoothness=*. Would one of you that think smoothness is worse than nothing
> care to comment on the "definition by example" I proposed in
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-November/031779.html
> ?


I've just had a read of this post, and I think my primary concerns are still
present.

My biggest issues is that smoothness varies depending on the vehicle in
question, and as such it's just to vague to really be of use.

If you tag a road with smoothness valid for a car user (what type of car?
4wd big effin thing, or a lotus elise?), then what about a cyclist (and lets
not even start looking at the different types of cyclists!). I just perceive
it to be far to vague to cover the average users of that way, it's got
nothing to do with fringe cases at all.

I think a merger of the two suggestions would make sense.

<vehicle type>:<vehicle sub type>=<smoothness factor>

This allows us to clearly define what is going on, and have it explicitly
relevant to the different vehicle types that would use it.

Yes, certain inference would be required for the majority of locations,
however it DOES allow for specialist tagging for those who care to do it in
those area's, and they would all reside together, and be easily
understandable.

<smoothness factore> can also have different definitions based on vehicle
types.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20081201/432ef85e/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list