2014-03-20 11:40 GMT+01:00 David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>: > > as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst), > > No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate > that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many > roads far, far worse that the grade5 description. And thats why we need > grade6,7,8, to cover those roads beyond the existing scale.
if you look at the tracktype wiki key-page (as well as on the original proposal) it was never spoken of or defined any tracktype beyond grade5, instead it is always about grade1 to grade5. Current taginfo usage supports this view, where 99,9% of all values are within this range. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=tracktype#values Now let's look at the definitions, tracktype is often seen as "how much constructed" a track is, and grade5 is a not constructed track, in the image covered by vegetation (grass). Now what can be less constructed than not costructed at all? Obviously these exemplaric pictures are useful for reference only in a small geographical window (namely central / northern Europe), while already in southern Europe it will be difficult to find situations like these (less water and therefore less and different vegetation). Photos in general have the advantage that they can communicate quite well to someone in the same setting what is thought of by a tag, but they also bear the risk that you think (in a different setting) "I don't have something like this here", that's why I'd personally prefer to not use photos in tag definitions or to add more of them to show different examples for the same thing in different settings (so that it becomes clearer that these are only illustrations and the feature might actually look quite different). cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
