2014/1/3 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > but in the long run it's going to give us less precise > > maps. > > If you like precise maps, how can you recommend "smoothness" ? what is > precise between "smoothness=intermediate" (city bike) and > "smoothness=good" (racing bike) ?
I agree those are not very good values, but how is that not better than tracktype? If we have a horribly rugged paved road, is that grade1 or grade3? What if we have a very smooth grass road in some posh golf club? If we went with the wiki, that should be grade5. The question is, what is smoothness? I think we should define it internally with a number of millimeters of the average hole in the road. That is just so we have internal consensus of what is good, bad, horrible etc. For the average mapper, I think the best solution is to have a picture of most surfaces and their corresponding smoothnesses. So a picture of excellent asphalt, a picture of good asphalt,... a picture of intermediate ground,... and a picture of horrible sand. And everything in between. Actually you don't need all combinations because some of them don't make sense. Those pictures would then show up in all editors when you search for the surface you need. Janko
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
