On 15/07/18 17:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 14. Jul 2018, at 09:07, Warin <[email protected]> wrote:
Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all.
because in golfing you don’t refer to grass by referring explicitly to
different heights, you use specific types of vegetation and “treatment” and
obstacles/features, like fairway, green, rough, bunker. It makes no sense (to
me) to describe the features of a golf course in an abstract way if it is
immediate and self explanatory to use duck tagging and precise terms. IMHO
applying the terms of the domain you want to describe makes it both, easier for
data consumers to understand what is intended, and for mappers to know which
tags to apply (as long as the mappers are familiar with the domain).
Devils advocate hat firmly on.
But what is intended? Not the height of the grass .. but the 'smoothness and
regularity' of the playing surface?
I use http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/ as an example again.
That golf course has no grown grass. They use sand and oil for the greens. They
use artificial grass on the tees.
The difference is the finish on the surfaces .. not the size of gains of sand
nor size of the rocks nor the height of the grass...
I have just finished tagging that golf course .. fairways have surface=sand,
colour=white; greens are surface=sand, colour=black.
Humm I don't remember what I have tagged tees as? Should be colour=green,
surface=artificial_grass and they should be square.
.
I don't have the knowledge to tag the roughs, bunkers and some of the tees
there so it is just a rough start.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
