We don't have to stick to the term "trafficability". What would be a
good alternative?
- usability
- passable
- passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term)
- usable_if
- ???
Cheers,
BGNO
2014/1/3 Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Me either, but there it is. I wouldn't give it much c
Am Samstag, den 04.01.2014, 11:19 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO:
> We don't have to stick to the term "trafficability". What would be a
> good alternative?
>
> - usability
> - passable
> - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term)
> - usable_if
> - ???
>
None of them.
I think
So, let me know if you disagree with this summary. "Highway" here
excludes highway=track and highway=path.
A highway is "bad" (significantly worse for most people than its best
possible state) when it contains any of the following tags:
- tracktype=grade2/grade3/grade4/grade5
- smoothness=bad/ver
How about using smoothness:condition or ford:condition for that?
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Wolfgang Hinsch wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 04.01.2014, 11:19 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO:
>> We don't have to stick to the term "trafficability". What would be a
>> good alternative?
>>
>> - usability
>> -
Am Freitag, den 03.01.2014, 20:18 -0500 schrieb Richard Welty:
> On 1/3/14 8:10 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> > Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north
> > side of Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
> that depends on what the direction of the way re
>
> > Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as
> > highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is
> > in use and what it connects (I cannot determine this from pictures
> > alone) with surface=dirt or surface=ground.
>
> One other point I want to
Still on this parenthesis, our authorities simply "administer", they
do not publish any official recognition of "importance" (other than "I
administer this road"). Using this as criterion, classification
becomes highly subjective guesswork in Brazil and doesn't work well as
Gerald pointed out. It i
Fernando Trebien wrote on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 10:00:34 -0200:
>So, let me know if you disagree with this summary. "Highway" here
>excludes highway=track and highway=path.
>
>A highway is "bad" (significantly worse for most people than its best
>possible state) when it contains any of the following tag
I understand the point you are making. A key "flooded" is already in use:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=flooded
May be we can continue with something based on that one.
Cheers,
BGNO
2014/1/4 Wolfgang Hinsch :
> Please tag what is to be seen "on the ground". If the surface consists
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, malenki wrote:
> I personally would exclude "grade2" as definition for "really bad
> highway" For the rest I agree.
Would you agree that it's "potentially bad"?
--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409
"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore
>
> If you want a full justification of why a particular way was
> classified as it is, then I think you need a reasonably full
> description of a surface that would be useful for various kinds of
> routing. Considering what we've debated so far and also the
> characteristics that are used in many
I've thought about that once. An accelerometer may estimate the
frequency of bumps, but their depth would require informing the app
about some very specific technical of information (such as car weight
and some coefficient to express how its dampener has been tuned - that
or the car's resonance cur
2014/1/3 Janko Mihelić
> We have a tag for this, it's smoothness:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>
> I am for a combination of surface and surface tags.
>
+1
A problem I see with smoothness is not what it tries to describe, but the
actual values used to do so. The supposed
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> The descriptions on the smoothness page, i.e.
> "thin_rollers", "thin_wheels", "wheels", "robust_wheels", "high_clearance",
> "off_road_wheels", "specialized_off_road_wheels", "No wheeled vehicle" are
> easier to understand and more sui
2014/1/4 Martin Koppenhoefer
> 2014/1/3 Janko Mihelić
>
>> I am for a combination of surface and surface tags.
>>
> +1
>
Hehe
> The descriptions on the smoothness page, i.e. "thin_rollers",
> "thin_wheels", "wheels", "robust_wheels", "high_clearance",
> "off_road_wheels", "specialized_off_roa
One example of a set of values for footpaths: stiletto_heels, flipflops,
sneakers, hiking_boots, mountaineering_boots.
Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I really like the combination of keeping surface and using smoothness to cover
quality. All types of roads and all users could be served by changing the
values to the wheel descriptions. This would be a closed set that is fairly
robust, if we also added something to represent weather variability
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> http://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lidar1.jpg
> surface=car_breaker
surface=bmw (or break_my_window :-)
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.o
OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner.
But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize
where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what
we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ?
If people think its a good idea I co
Well said. I'm for that approach.
These threads are nearly impossible to keep in your head as new comments
and views emerge. I'm not sure consensus will be easy to arrive at in
either case but it's worth a try. Create a new "unified" proposal page and
go from there. I agree that the smoothness val
20 matches
Mail list logo
