I would not map a noise level value for any surface. a. It's not the surface that produces the noise; b. it's a relative value, but compared to what? You would need/assume a standard regular noise value for comparison; c. the standard will change over time, making all mapped values wrong.
<Duck mode> I'm at an asphalt road. The asphalt looks fine to me, nice and smooth. There is no label attached to the surface. What would the noise level be? Mmmmmm.... can't tell. Don't have a noisometer. Next! </> Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 3 mei 2019 om 10:14 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 2. May 2019, at 23:11, Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> wrote: > > > > I'd rather propose surface=asphalt asphalt=whisper or the like. > > > > asphalt:type would also be okay with me. There are more likely 100s of > types > > of asphalt. > > > I also would not introduce a new surface value, it is still asphalt. > Either you see it as an additional property like > asphalt:noise=low (thinking of eventually 2-3 values like > low/default/noisy), which would open a whole field of asphalt properties > (asphalt:drainage, ...) or if „whispering asphalt“ is really considered a > type of asphalt on its own, a subtag for an asphalt class: > asphalt=whispering or porous... > (or the synonymous asphalt:type asphalt_type,...) > > I would tend to the former > asphalt:noise=low > > (concise and easy to understand) > > Cheers, Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
