[OSM-talk] Key:smoothness

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Sun Feb 1 11:47:44 GMT 2009

... And by the way ... Does 'good' mean:

Good for a motorcar? (I know of local unclassified ("OS yellow roads") that
cannot be driven except in a 4WD (some appear on my TomTom even).

Good for a horse and cart? (All Restricted Byways in England should be
suitable - but many are not - too narrow or have stiles).

Good for a horse? (How good a show jumper for those stiles - see above?)

Good for a bicycle? (Many bridleways would be fine on a horse and yet
impossible on a bike - even where bikes are allowed)

Good for a walker?  (How fit - what constitutes 'normal' ability? - is a
stile 'good' or only a kissing-gate?)

... In short "good" (or "horrible") is almost entirely subjective (and also
language-dependent) and even using a 1-5 scale is still subjective (is the
mapper thinking like a walker? A cyclist? An off-road quad-biker? A horse?

... I would probably tend to "vote" or "opinionate" against any proposal
using a subjective adjective as the value for a key.

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Vekemans [mailto:acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 January 2009 23:15
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness

I think the page needs to be put back to the regular map features standard.

English is an odd language. There are many acceptions to the rule.
This is one of them.

Technically, this tag follows the rule of {{tag|key|value}} where
'excellant', 'good', 'bad', 'horrible'. Are all descriptives of 'smoothness'

For OpenStreetMap, the tag value of 'good' can only be used in a direct
representative fashion.

According to Wikipedia, good.
"to unite, to be associated, to be suitable" are all adjectives. To they are
dependent on something else.
Similarly, "fence" can be used, but "sharp" on its own, cannot be used.

However, ... The point to note for the talk list is that for "excellent",
"good", "intermediate", the wiki pages have not been created yet.
... So I will create the page.  Then we an divide this HUGE discussion into
a more appropriate Wiki; if we can agree on usage of the term, "good"  ...
and decide that it's not valid for openstreetmap.  Then, by default to key:
smoothness:good would also no longer be valid.
If we can accurately describe "good" as an acceptable attribute value,
example: relation scale 1-5. Good being 2, and very bad being 5. ..
then that makes the term commonly understood, along with describing a
particular mode of transportation.

I hope this make sense,
and BTW, for a discussion about the 'voting system'  this page has not yet
been created either.  On this page, it would be appropriate to describe all
of the different available options for voting, as well as the 'pros' and
'cons' for each method of voting.
- i would recommend a chart for the voting. .. for saying "i agree"
with this tag, is in it's self rather vague. ... if you explain WHY you
agree, then it can be further understood.  ... In many cases, i have noticed
that users would add on a little catch phrase of the WHY
on the voting.   So those who choose not to explain WHY they vote a
certain way, it would remain blank.
- a second example of voting is:  Using the "+1" before you write your
reason, is helpful to the reader also.
- a 3rd example of voting is in the database it's self, if it is used most
of the time, counting the number of usages world wide.

Sam Vekemans
Across Canada Trails

More information about the talk mailing list