... but on the other hand your estimation *can *be seen as "/the instrument used/", so I'm in no way against using /metric/:source=estimate.
The only gotcha could happen when you have to import a measure from on official source (/and you want to indicate it/) and... the official source has stated that the measurement is an estimation. It can happen. It's actually happening... On 2018-11-13 22:31, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > 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
