How are data consumers going to use the data ???
Not much point in it for them I'd think.
For mappers that come along later it may be a usefull guide for
comparison with their measurements.
But few mappers will be bothered entering it so I again don't see much
point.
I'd think tagging like
width:uncertainty=*
ele:uncertainty=*
etc
Or
uncertainty:width=*
uncertainty:ele=*
etc
might be the way to go?
The uncertainty coverage factor of 1 (or standard deviation for a
Gaussian distribution) could be stipulated as part of any documentation.
On 18/08/18 17:53, Peter Elderson wrote:
Sure. But is there a standard method to indicate this uncertainty in
OSM, which can be processed by data consumers?
Mvg Peter Elderson
Op 18 aug. 2018 om 01:35 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
What you are trying to refer to is 'measurement uncertainty'.
For a non professional rough guide;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_uncertainty
Naturally formed water way widths may have a great deal of variation
along their widths .. and so the uncertainty will be very high unless
specified along short segments.
On 18/08/18 09:11, Peter Elderson wrote:
It would not be that hard to add a precision to a measurement. Any
measurement. Maybe there already is a standard method for that?
Mvg Peter Elderson
Op 17 aug. 2018 om 20:50 heeft SelfishSeahorse
<selfishseaho...@gmail.com <mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> het
volgende geschreven:
On Friday, August 17, 2018, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de
<mailto:o...@imagico.de>> wrote:
On Friday 17 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> Of course we could just use width=*, but it's not always easily
> possible to measure the width (e.g. in a forest) and sometimes it
> changes often.
I would translate this into "i want a subjective non-verifiable
classification system but i hide this by defining pro forma
verifiable
criteria for the classes".
A classification based on width is arbitrary, but i don't see why
it be subjective.
If you want to map the river width tag width=*, if you don't
want to map
the width then don't create classes based on width thresholds.
Imagine a stream/brook in a forest, not visible on satellite
imagery. You can't measure its width on site (because you don't
have the equipment or because the soil at its sides is marshy), but
you know (estimate) that it's wider than 1 metre, but less wide
than 3 metres. In my opinion it's better to have that information
that none.
If you enter width="1 m - 3 m", data users very likely won't
understand it. However if you enter width="2 m", the width value
pretends to be exact. Besides it is very unlikely that someone else
verifies that value, considering the fact that less than 1% of
waterway=* tags have a width=* tag.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
