The problem is that setts are often referred to as cobbles, in common parlance. If someone tags something as cobbles, I'd probably reckon they were actually setts 99% of the time.
http://g.co/maps/bnndk The stuff in the road is cobbles; in the gutter and on the pavements is setts. So having a clear setts/cobbles (illustrated) distinction is good, but I wouldn't rely on it. A warning to data users is probably wise. Richard On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Bennett < openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote: > On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Is it consensus to use "sett" instead of "cobblestones" for most of >> the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with >> "sett". >> > > How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap >> to distinguish on a finer granularity between different pavings? >> > > You shouldn't be using "sett" instead of "cobblestones" in any case, > because they're not the same thing. My understanding is that cobblestones > are irregular stones, used in pretty much their natural state for paving, > whereas setts are specifically shaped, brick-sized pieces of rock (granite > in the case of Guildford High Street, where I live) that form a smoother > surface (but not as smooth as a metalled road). > > Paving stones, I'd venture, are another class again, where they can either > genuinely be flat stones or cast material, but larger than setts or > cobblestones, perhaps over 50cm. > > In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and > non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think > surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. > > > Jonathan. > > ______________________________**_________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
