[OSM-talk] smoothness

[Robert Vollmert]

This turned out rather long. Summary: "smoothness" is a useful tag,
though the wiki definition may be lacking. Thanks for reading.

On Nov 27, 2008, at 11:27, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> The table is full of such subjective assessments: can I roller blade
> on it. No, I can't. It doesn't help that I can't roller blade at all.
> So sure, if the tag was, "is it possible to roller blade down this
> road assuming a skill level of a Grade III Roller Blading Proficiency
> Award?" then it might have a point, but it's not.

How about: "Would an average roller blader like to use this?"

Personally, I couldn't care less for an absolutely precise and
objective definition for a tag. If the description gives a good
idea of how to use the tag in most situations, that's perfect.
There'll always be corner cases.

It's quite possible that people have tried too hard to define
"smoothness" objectively (and have claimed too strongly that
it's even possible to define it 100% precisely).

Here's how I see smoothness (on the smooth side of things, I don't
care about things beyond bad). If the people that formulated the
smoothness proposal disagree, I guess that proves your point.

excellent: this is what well paved new cycle ways tend to be like;
some fine type of asphalt; good for roller-skating, a pleasure on
a road bike

good: your typical road in good state; a cycleway like above but
with some small bumps from tree roots because they didn't care to
put a proper foundation (?) underneath; a high-quality non-paved
footway in a park

intermediate: a road the has been worn down and could use a new
cover, some unevenness from heavy traffic; motorway made of slabs
of concrete with annoying bumps when passing to a new slab (you'd
really want to use the fast lane exclusively if that's recently
been repaved); lots of tree root induced bumps on a cycleway; a
footway in a park with coarser gravel or uneven enough that
there'll be puddles when it rains; high-quality cobblestoned
road (small stones with flat surface, or perhaps some filling of
the gaps); the average motorist wouldn't mind, the average cyclist
wouldn't complain (at least not loudly), you wouldn't want to
skate here.

Anything worse, I'd tag "bad" for now and put a note/fixme in
so someone else can say how bad it really is.

I think "smoothness" fits the above distinctions quite well. Together
with surface=paved/unpaved, it should provide most information about
a way's surface that users of wheeled (on-road) vehicles would like
to have when deciding which road to choose.

Cheers
Robert