On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard<m...@bioxray.au.dk> wrote: > >> "hard-to-verify data" - I don't see why incline=* is any harder to >> verify than ele=* - as you said yourself, if you have one you can >> calculate/verify the other... > > The fact that there's a lot of unreliable and hard-to-verify data is no good > argument for adding more.
What? The key question is if a tag is verifiable. Incline=* is just as verifiable as ele=*. It's just in a different form. The "good argument" for adding incline=* is that it is 1) easy to read off a sign (say, source:incline=sign), 2) provides valuable information in the meantime, while we wait for you to develop and import your ele=* solution. > Incline tagging is useless unless a consumer of this data can count on it > being generally available. A driver might find herself on a steep incline > when expecting a flat one, just because it wasn't tagged. This is ridiculous. The absence of incline=* does not infer incline=0 - it infers that the incline is unknown/unspecified. Just as absence of ele=* doesn't infer ele=0 - it infers that the elevation is unknown/unspecified. > IMHO it is much more productive to spend time working out some system that > would allow us to compute inclines automatically on the whole dataset. That > would give you the desired data all over the world and not just in your > local area. Sounds great - but in the meantime, people will continue to tag what they see on the ground - especially on road signs - in any way they see fit. Better that incline=* is used consistently for tagging incline, in the meantime. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
