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 10-15% of cases I've seen the worse values used, they were plain wrong. (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible).
On the other hand tracktype seems to be used pretty consistently. It may be off bei +-1, but usually no more. 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 to be used in a map because it is too unreliable. On 13 March 2015 at 11:09, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/03/2015 7:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > Hi! > > 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <dban...@internode.on.net>: > >> > 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 smooth >> is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be >> smooth all the way ? >> > > That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the > values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that > "good" means smoother than "bad". But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5? > > And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the > values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) > > And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact > meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use > the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values > correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more > appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with > smoothness=grade97, because a "good smoothness" will have a much wider > common understanding than "smoothness=31415whatever". > > Best regards, > Martin > > P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this > mailing list ;-) > > > > 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 value was a simple number I'd nave no idea..and may skip the data > entry due to time limits, laziness and added complexity. > > Some decades ago I looked at road classifications .. for 'off road' > vehicles, I was after erosion problems at the time ... I think there may be > some classification system for smoothness .. certainly there was for the > load bearing of a terrain. Some US military publication had some tech data > in it .. amonst some 40 odd publications I skimmed through at the time. > Might try to look that up? Depends on how easy it is to find it in the > library catalogue ... it is better than google .. but they have a different > system of course. > > ------------------------ > Photos help ... but I'd like some word guidance too. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org Floragasse 9/11 1040 Wien Austria - Österreich
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
