Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On 11.03.2015 12:56, jgpacker wrote: > Is this claim over it's verifiability still current? Yes, it is, because the photos contradict the verbal value definitions. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria __

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I'm not sure much can be done about the situation. Verifiability depends on one person's subjective assessment of the smoothness of a road. The illustration in the Wiki of a road that is "impassable" can be negotiated by a skilled rider on a mountain bike. During the discussion of this topic someo

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I search an adjective about this tag and I hesitate between "very_bad" and "horrible" ;-) Btw, what's different today about its verifiability ? I think most of the people rejecting this tag simply ignore the discussions around it. This gives a different perspective about your "consensus". Removing

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

There is clearly problem with verifiability of this tag, as in my case I am frequently unsure which value should be used. And it is not even starting to cover problems with multiple people having different opinions. It is not changing fact that there is no better tag to describe surface that is ma

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I fully agree with Martin. Availability of a tag like this is very important. I have to be able to enter a value while I am driving without sophisticated measuring equipment. I rather have a rating that is one step off on the scale than no rating at all. Many of these roads are in areas where few

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On 11.03.2015 17:29, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Perhaps we can extend the library of pictures in the wiki to give people a > better feeling which rating means what. I agree that work on the pictures is needed. The values and their verbal descriptions are approved, and they look sound, while the bogus

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I consider the definitions quite reasonable for this tag. Yes,there is a degree of subjectiveness there,there has to be given what it is trying to do. Honestly, we really need to got over this dread fear of being subjective. Not everything can be measured in integer numbers, great when it can b

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I am a little unsure what the problem is with the pictures. Could you be a bit more specific please Friedrich ? It would be very hard to have a set of pictures that cover every case but, as Jan said, if we are only one level out, thats still very useful information. Honestly, while not very cle

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I don't say that the pictures are wrong, but it would be helpful to have perhaps six representative pictures of every level. Related question: does the tag only cover uneven ground or also for example also deep soft sand that may be difficult to cross. The tag surface=sand in itself doesn't tell m

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On 12/03/2015 5:05 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: but the bottom line question is: how hard is it to pass with a 2WD, 4WD, motorcycle etc. That is a very complex question. You may add bicycle to the vehicles too. Animals and humans .. too? Soft surfaces may not support the vehicle weight (given a

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On 11.03.2015 23:23, David wrote: > I am a little unsure what the problem is with the pictures. Could you be a > bit more specific please Friedrich ? > > It would be very hard to have a set of pictures that cover every case but, as > Jan said, if we are only one level out, thats still very usefu

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On 12/03/2015 5:39 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: I think that we should explicitly include or exclude steepness in the smoothness definition. Opinions? Exclude. 'Steepness' is covered by the incline tag. There is no mention of width or surface in the smoothness tag.. nor should there be. The

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-11 13:53 GMT+01:00 Pieren : > I search an adjective about this tag and I hesitate between "very_bad" > and "horrible" ;-) > In my opinion this tag is pretty bad. > Btw, what's different today about its verifiability ? I think most of > the people rejecting this tag simply ignore the di

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-11 23:15 GMT+01:00 David : > I consider the definitions quite reasonable for this tag. Yes,there is a > degree of subjectiveness there,there has to be given what it is trying to > do. Honestly, we really need to got over this dread fear of being > subjective. Not everything can be measured

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 7:24 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > That is a very complex question. You may add bicycle to the vehicles too. > Animals and humans .. too? > > Soft surfaces may not support the vehicle weight (given a tyre size and > number). > > Slippery surfaces may no provide enough tract

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

+1 But make it 1-8 note grade1-grade8 for simplicity IMHO. The grade1-grade5 for tracktype is an error in itself... It does not matter if it's easier or more difficult - the main thing is that people using it should know what they enter. With the current values like good some mappers just us

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 10:36 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > I believe that the main problem are the value names. If these were called > grade1 to grade8 many more people would likely use these values and I guess > there would be much fewer objections. > Is grade1 now excellent or horrible? No, numeric va

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > Is grade1 now excellent or horrible? > > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like > the values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad". > it really doesn't help you a lot to know whether "good" i

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this discussion the two are mixed: 1. The physical status of the road is described as well as possible and it is left to the receiver of this information to judge if he/she can use the road. This is quite complex as many p

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground. When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to be grade

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 12:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the > community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something > entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground. I believe the tag "smoothness"

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

(I think of the roads we drove in Kenya), so any input is welcome even if it isn't perfect. We ran into some nasty surprises during our trip because the road quality wasn't tagged at all. +1. I also widely use smoothness=* in Madagascar. Indeed, I use it to describe practicability of roads or

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I think the judgement words should be taken out of the tags. *For hiking a "horrible" trail may be nicer than a "smooth" one. Stepping over roots for example is not always unpleasant.* glassy - smooth - rough - bumpy - or an measurement 1-20cm 20-30cm 30-50cm travel:motorcycle={easy:hard:very_

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

> No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the > values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad". But Martin, its not a "good" or "bad" situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smoo

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

"I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.." I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or track. It does really need to be looked at in context, the issues averaged out by eye. O

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

+1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David wrote: > "I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.." > > I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my > experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or > track. It does really need to b

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David : > > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like > the values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad". > > But Martin, its not a "good" or "bad" situation, thats the point. Some > people seek out extremely ch

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On 13/03/2015 7:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David >: > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad". But Martin, i

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

Yes it's easier to understand. But the praxis clearly showed that if we have verbal grading - then the quality is much much worse. I love the intention of smoothness - but in real life the verbal descriptors make it very hard to argue to use it in a map. Not because it is off by +-1 but because in

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-13 11:09 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > I'm for verbal description rather than a number - easier to understand. > If I come across a road marked 'smoothness=medium' and later come across a > road with worse smoothness I can see which way to go with the verbal value, > if the va

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Felix Hartmann wrote: > (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible). > And with smoothness and other verbal gradings - 10-15% of all ratings seem > to be way off because the mapper never read/understood that scale. This in > turn makes it impossible t

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

> Am 13.03.2015 um 18:42 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt : > > A road of sustained moderate sand might be far worse for some vehicles, > compared to a road with one deep > sand spot. if the problem is the exception I would rather use the hazard tag for this and not downgrade the whole road, if part

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

And description is utterly useless for any kind of automated processing - for example routing. 2015-03-13 18:42 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Felix Hartmann > wrote: > >> (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible). >> And with smoothness and other ver

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

> "And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values > actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-)" Hmm, mappers or end users ? Honestly, i don't consider either numeric or two or three word tags can be expected to convey enough info. So i would suggest most "primary" us

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

Jan van Bekkum wrote: >There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this >discussion the two are mixed: > 1. The physical status of the road is described > 2. The tagger determines how hard it will be to use Over the years, I've seen the different assessment ideas and t

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-15 17:58 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri : > So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most > exact and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: "Did you > get through with transport mode x?" Possible answers are: > - no > - just barely > - with extra effort/

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

This is something worth considering IMO. We can't seem to come to an agreement on which system to use, numeric or descriptive, and perhaps part of the problem is the difficulty in deciding exactly which grade to pick. Maybe having fewer choices would result in more agreement and make the tag easi

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 16:58 +, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: > So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most exact > and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: "Did you get > through with transport mode x?" Possible answers are: > - no > - just barely > - wit

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

Now a SURVEY would be fine, where multiple answers are allowed: Mode: motorbike Date: 2015-01-01 Rating: Easy User:fester Mode: car Date: 2015-02-01 Rating: Easy User:fsdfsfs Mode: motorbike Date: 2015-04-01 Rating: Impassable User:fester ___ Ta