[OSM-talk] Key:smoothness

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 2 03:24:03 GMT 2009

Mike Harris schrieb:
> ... And by the way ... Does 'good' mean:

I guess you want to missunderstand this tag.

> 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).

First of all, as you are talking a lot about horses indicates to me that 
you not even have read the proposal page. It explicitly mentions: "the 
physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles"

Do you know a horse with wheels? Do you know a *walker* with wheels?

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

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)

see above

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

see above

> ... 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?

see above

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

Please READ the proposal and then try again ...

Regards, ULFL

P.S: I'm not involved in this proposal and I probably will only rarely 
use it. But criticise it for stuff that the proposal was never meant for 
is a bit strange ...

More information about the talk mailing list