I missed the existence of "/metric/:source". At first sight (my /guesstimate/...) it is not much used (/46 times it is associated to "width", 0 times with "length", and 413 times with "heigth"/), but it is actually used with that meaning (/the most used value is "estimated"/), and it could be a viable solution.
On the other hand I think that "source" is not the first thing (/word/) you think of (/I didn't.../) when you think of something to indicate the accuracy (/or lack thereof.../) of a measurement. Even more, if you happen to know the accuracy of a measurement (/e.g: having taken into account the precision/bias of your instrument, mediated on "n" measurements and computed the standard deviation/), with metric:accuracy=* you can indicate its actual accuracy. If you "/eyeballed/" or, as we say in Italy, "/measured by spans/", you could instead indicate metric:accuracy=estimated. "metric:source", I think, should be more used to indicate the instrument used (e.g. length:source= Bosch GLM 50 C) or the official source of a measurement (e.g.: height:source=ESA). Cheers! On 2018-11-13 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote: > I like the ideas using height:source or height:accuracy, but want to point > out that they could imply different things. > > ... > > tl;dr: I really like metric:source=*.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
