[OSM-talk] Key:smoothness

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 2 08:46:48 GMT 2009


Sam

Thanks - I don't feel quite so bad now after reading your response ... 

Ulf

I think Sam makes much the point that I failed to explain properly. Forlåt
että jag förstår inte .. (or should that be Entschuldingungen daß ich nicht
richtig verstehen habe ... you never know with a googlemail address!)

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Vekemans [mailto:acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 February 2009 06:12
To: Ulf Lamping
Cc: Mike Harris; talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness

Ya, im working on the wiki "smoothness=good"
Mike was just just giving examples.
:-) it should be ready for the peanut gallary in the next few days.

Btw: A horse & buggie has wheels.
Kids shoes can contain 'healies' (wheels in heal of shoe) ;-)

im using the explaination that; "good" is a "subjective adjective"
(then giving examples)
-and even as a sub:key, (road) 'good' always needs to be further explained
based on the context of the description.

.... Making this wiki in the most neutral POV -neithor for or against the
tag, just explaining what it is.

It might also serve as a 'good' template :-)

ps, the person who created the tag MUST have been playing 'devils advicate'
-fortunatly, it will help further understand the language of 'map features'.
:-)

happy mapping.
Sam

On 2/1/09, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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







More information about the talk mailing list