"Good" means different things to different users. A racing cyclist,
touring cyclist, and trail/mtb cyclist will all have difference views.
These will be even more different to a wheelchair user, hiker, 4x4
vehicle driver, smart car driver, and a tractor driver. More
importantly take any one of the above, and they will have arguments as
to how suitable the way is for passing over. It is also a very
relative thing as someone in one part of the world will say a road has
one quality, while someone else will give something completely
different as that is what they are used to.
Every single one of these types of people will have a different view,
thus it is a very, very subjective tag. You need to go back to first
principles and try to workout what makes a good road/path. Then each
data user will need to work out what they think is a good road on that
particular way. This makes it objective. The data is far more useful
to a wider range of people. It will be somewhat more work to process,
however it will give much more customisation for the end users of the
data. This will mean that the OSM data will have a much greater value.
The surface tag is far better, maybe some more values are needed
there? Maybe some sub values are required?
Shaun
On 31 Jan 2009, at 23:15, Sam Vekemans wrote:
> I think the page needs to be put back to the regular map features
> standard.
>
> English is an odd language. There are many acceptions to the rule.
> This is one of them.
>
> Technically, this tag follows the rule of {{tag|key|value}} where
> 'excellant', 'good', 'bad', 'horrible'. Are all descriptives of
> 'smoothness'
>
> For OpenStreetMap, the tag value of 'good' can only be used in a
> direct representative fashion.
>
> According to Wikipedia, good.
> "to unite, to be associated, to be suitable" are all adjectives. To
> they are dependent on something else.
> Similarly, "fence" can be used, but "sharp" on its own, cannot be
> used.
>
> However, ... The point to note for the talk list is that for
> "excellent", "good", "intermediate", the wiki pages have not been
> created yet.
> ... So I will create the page. Then we an divide this HUGE discussion
> into a more appropriate Wiki; if we can agree on usage of the term,
> "good" ... and decide that it's not valid for openstreetmap. Then,
> by default to key: smoothness:good would also no longer be valid.
> If we can accurately describe "good" as an acceptable attribute value,
> example: relation scale 1-5. Good being 2, and very bad being 5. ..
> then that makes the term commonly understood, along with describing a
> particular mode of transportation.
>
> **
> I hope this make sense,
> and BTW, for a discussion about the 'voting system' this page has not
> yet been created either. On this page, it would be appropriate to
> describe all of the different available options for voting, as well as
> the 'pros' and 'cons' for each method of voting.
> - i would recommend a chart for the voting. .. for saying "i agree"
> with this tag, is in it's self rather vague. ... if you explain WHY
> you agree, then it can be further understood. ... In many cases, i
> have noticed that users would add on a little catch phrase of the WHY
> on the voting. So those who choose not to explain WHY they vote a
> certain way, it would remain blank.
> - a second example of voting is: Using the "+1" before you write your
> reason, is helpful to the reader also.
> - a 3rd example of voting is in the database it's self, if it is used
> most of the time, counting the number of usages world wide.
>
> Cheers,
> Sam Vekemans
> Across Canada Trails
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
