What problem are you trying to fix here? Usually it is pretty obvious if
a street has artificial lighting or not. Instead of creating artificial
boundaries quantising shades of grey into black and white, why not make
it more objective and record the light level in lux on the centre line
of the road? Or would it be better to do that on the footpath? That
would complicate matters because the two sides of the road may differ.
I would say, don't over-engineer the model, and keep it fit for purpose.
The more complexity you add to these rules, the lower the compliance
will be.
Also, don't forget that whether a road is "lit" or not has consequences
for traffic regulations, at least in the UK. There is a specific
definition associated with this. If you break that link, there will be
another interminable discussion about retagging.
My vote is to leave lit=* alone!
On 2019-07-06 12:24, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Some cases of lit=yes are clear (direct lighting of street/footway by lamps)
>
> Some cases of lit=no are clear (no lighting whatsoever)
>
> But in cities there is also often strong or weak ambient light, for example:
>
> - carriageway is directly lit with so powerful light that spillover light
> makes footway well lit - clearly lit=yes
>
> - spillover light is quite dim but enough to comfortably walk - also lit=yes
>
> - there is some ambient light, but not enough to walk without own
> source of light - lit=no
>
> - there is an ambient light, one can carefully walk, but only slowly,
> people with poor eyesight needs their own source of light - lit=no (?)
>
> Overall, I am considering adding to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lit
> recommendation to consider "is it necessary to bring your own light source to
> see it properly"
> as recommended threshold for footways/paths.
>
> Any problems with that or ideas for a better threshold between lit=yes and
> lit=no?
>
> disclaimer: I am trying to make lit=yes/no definition more precise as part of
> my grant
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/368849
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
