Current status of the key smoothness=*

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Janko Mihelić
I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground.

When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to be grade3, and then you can be sure that's the right value.

Janko


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

dieterdreist

2015-03-12 12:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić <[hidden email]>:
I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground.


I believe the tag "smoothness" doesn't fit generally for sand surfaces, but asphalt and ground could easily use the same metrics / definitions.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Eric Sibert
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
> (I think of the roads we drove in Kenya), so any input is welcome even if it
> isn't perfect. We ran into some nasty surprises during our trip because the
> road quality wasn't tagged at all.

+1.

I also widely use smoothness=* in Madagascar. Indeed, I use it to  
describe practicability of roads or tracks for 4 wheels motor  
vehicles, in somehow to answer the question: what kind of vehicle do I  
need to use this road?

Despite using it often, I still have to check the wiki time to time to  
be sure about values definition. I even more dislike tracktype=gradeN  
that is using numerical values.

Maybe, it is time to define a new key/values. We already have  
mtb:scale and sac_scale.

For instance, practicability for cars:

practicability=*

practicability=no (damaged road)
practicability=tractor_only
practicability=fourwheeldrive_only (and not 4WD_only to avoid abbreviation)
practicability=highclearance_only
practicability=normal (default value)
practicability=lowclearance

Subjectivity still remains. One may consider a road as usable with a  
high clearance car because it is used by 404 taxi-brousse when another  
one may not want to use his Porche Cayenne SUV on it.

It doesn't really describe smoothness. A road usable with normal  
vehicles may be driven at 100 km/h or 20 km/h, depending on smoothness.

One may define some side scales like:

practicability:bicycle=mountainbike_only/trekkingbike_only/citybike/all(defaut)
practicability:motorcycle=*


My 0,02 €.

Eric



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

brycenesbitt
I think the judgement words should be taken out of the tags.
For hiking a "horrible" trail may be nicer than a "smooth" one.  Stepping over roots for example is not always unpleasant.

glassy -
smooth -
rough -
bumpy -

or an measurement

1-20cm
20-30cm
30-50cm

travel:motorcycle={easy:hard:very_hard:impossible}
travel:foot={easy:hard:very_hard:impossible}
travel:wheelchair={easy:hard:very_hard:impossible}


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by jgpacker
> 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 ?

While i am not keen on numeric values, i think they are the best possible solution. Similarly, i think we need to concentrate on the word description and treat the photos as eye candy. That part is already pretty good.

David

.

Martin Vonwald <[hidden email]> wrote:



2015-03-12 10:36 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:
I believe that the main problem are the value names. If these were called grade1 to grade8 many more people would likely use these values and I guess there would be much fewer objections.

Is grade1 now excellent or horrible?

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". 




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by jgpacker
"I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.."

I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or track. It does really need to be looked at in context, the issues averaged out by eye. One, or even a set of snapshots just does not cut it !

And talking of issues, last time this discussion came up, from memory, we identified about 20 separate issues that might need to be considered. So lets not talk about trying to identify measurables.

The smoothness tag, as described, already takes the right direction, it tries to judge the usability of the road. And, honestly, thats what people want to know !

Lets improve it with better values, sure a heap of photos if thats what people want. But clear words that describe just what sort of vehicle could traverse the road.

So, questions, for better values, numerical or verbal ?

Is it acceptable for a tag to have two, parallel sets of values, why not ?

If we can get past there, we can then look for more descriptive sets of words....

David



.

Janko Mihelić <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground.

When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to be grade3, and then you can be sure that's the right value.

Janko


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Jan van Bekkum
+1

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David <[hidden email]> wrote:
"I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.."

I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or track. It does really need to be looked at in context, the issues averaged out by eye. One, or even a set of snapshots just does not cut it !

And talking of issues, last time this discussion came up, from memory, we identified about 20 separate issues that might need to be considered. So lets not talk about trying to identify measurables.

The smoothness tag, as described, already takes the right direction, it tries to judge the usability of the road. And, honestly, thats what people want to know !

Lets improve it with better values, sure a heap of photos if thats what people want. But clear words that describe just what sort of vehicle could traverse the road.

So, questions, for better values, numerical or verbal ?

Is it acceptable for a tag to have two, parallel sets of values, why not ?

If we can get past there, we can then look for more descriptive sets of words....

David



.

Janko Mihelić <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground.

When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to be grade3, and then you can be sure that's the right value.

Janko

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Martin Vonwald (Imagic)
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2
Hi!

2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <[hidden email]>:
> 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 ;-)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Warin
On 13/03/2015 7:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!

2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <[hidden email]>:
> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Felix Hartmann-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 13/03/2015 7:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!

2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <[hidden email]>:
> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




--
Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org & VeloMap.org
Floragasse 9/11
1040 Wien
Austria - Österreich

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Warin

2015-03-13 11:09 GMT+01:00 Warin <[hidden email]>:
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.


Problem with verbal descriptions is, that you don't know how much worse it is, e.g. grade1 vs. grade3 tells you there must also be a grade2, while "bad" vs. "medium" doesn't give you any such information.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

brycenesbitt
In reply to this post by Felix Hartmann-2
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Felix Hartmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
 (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible).
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.

+1 on this.

The tags are highly unreliable.  In part because it's unclear if you are supposed to tag the worst spot (one pothole)
or the average experience (potholes every 3 meters)?

A road of sustained moderate sand might be far worse for some vehicles, compared to a road with one deep
sand spot.  Conversely a deep sand spot might stop certain vehicles that could readily pass over miles of moderate sand.

---

I think a description is often far more useful to a map reader:

description=Forest road well maintained in summer, but not graded during winter.  Has two stream crossings with 10 inch high rocks, easily passed on a bicycle or motorbike, but difficult for low clearance vehicles.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

dieterdreist




> Am 13.03.2015 um 18:42 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt <[hidden email]>:
>
> A road of sustained moderate sand might be far worse for some vehicles, compared to a road with one deep
> sand spot.


if the problem is the exception I would rather use the hazard tag for this and not downgrade the whole road, if parts of a way are like a and others like b, I'd split the way, if you'd have to split every 2 meters I'd go for the worse rating and not split

cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Mateusz Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by brycenesbitt
And description is utterly useless for any kind of automated processing - for example routing.

2015-03-13 18:42 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt <[hidden email]>:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Felix Hartmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
 (e.g. a road with some pottholes described as horrible).
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.

+1 on this.

The tags are highly unreliable.  In part because it's unclear if you are supposed to tag the worst spot (one pothole)
or the average experience (potholes every 3 meters)?

A road of sustained moderate sand might be far worse for some vehicles, compared to a road with one deep
sand spot.  Conversely a deep sand spot might stop certain vehicles that could readily pass over miles of moderate sand.

---

I think a description is often far more useful to a map reader:

description=Forest road well maintained in summer, but not graded during winter.  Has two stream crossings with 10 inch high rocks, easily passed on a bicycle or motorbike, but difficult for low clearance vehicles.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by jgpacker
> "And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-)"

Hmm, mappers or end users ? Honestly, i don't consider either numeric or two or three word tags can be expected to convey enough info. So i would suggest most "primary" users do need to look at the wiki.

Given that, numeric tags would be better at forcing people to look at the wiki ! Words easier to guess and perhaps get wrong ! But I'd not promote that as a model, rest assured.

I don't feel strongly about numeric or word based values. Happy with either. So i will start a new thread to flush out who does.

David



.

Martin Vonwald <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi!

2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David <[hidden email]>:
> 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 ;-)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

Kytömaa Lauri
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
Jan van Bekkum wrote:
>There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this discussion the two are mixed:
> 1.  The physical status of the road is described
> 2.  The tagger determines how hard it will be to use

Over the years, I've seen the different assessment ideas and tagging ideas on the wiki and on this list. I believe these try to integrate too many variables into a single grade; and measuring 30 different physical characteristics is also too slow and quite hard for the consumers trying to calculate if they should suggest using or avoiding that way for any given transport mode.

So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most exact and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: "Did you get through with transport mode x?" Possible answers are:
- no
- just barely
- with extra effort/concentration/some difficulty
- yes

What constitutes "some difficulty" for each mode can be discussed more easily; i.e. for roller skates (never have) ruts, sett, tram tracks(?), but not curbs as such? These can be tabularized in the wiki later.

If you're in a "regular sedan", you can steer around the potholes and slow down (i.e. "concentration"), but if the wheels have to follow a very narrow path or the bottom of the vehicle would hit the ground, it's "just barely" for regular sedans. Or whatever local conditions the mapper comes across.

Surely, if the track is "just barely" traversable in a highly modified off road vehicle of brand Y with extras from brands Z and W, the driver of any other vehicle can assume they won't be able to use the track.

I haven't drafted the actual tags in detail, but I do have used
- police:mondeo=yes (originally as "here I saw a Mondeo use the footway", but later also "I've seen other vehicles drive here or it's obvious a normal car could physically use this")
- police:mondeo=no
- police:transporter:conditional=no @ (winter & 2wd)  ( as in "here I saw a VW Transporter fail to get up the incline on a footway")

The keys for a more general "suitable for use" tagging would have a prefix, a separator character (probably ':'), the general vehicle category possibly followed by more details (either a model, or something like high clearance), and the optional accessories would use the :conditional syntax.

known_suitable:motorcar = barely
known_suitable:motorcar:911 = no
known_suitable:motorcar:high_clearance = effort
known_suitable:Range_Rover = yes

The first driver can always add just the one tag that applies to their vehicle.

This might seem like a lot of work, but we have time, and mappers; enough data will accumulate with patience.


--
alv
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

dieterdreist

2015-03-15 17:58 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri <[hidden email]>:
So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most exact and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: "Did you get through with transport mode x?" Possible answers are:
- no
- just barely
- with extra effort/concentration/some difficulty
- yes


while I believe this is a working approach, I think it should be (in some cases that come to mind) more granual spatially: often ways tend to be not uniform but have changing surface and other characteristics along the way, so I would split the way into smaller parts with common attributes / properties.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

AlaskaDave
This is something worth considering IMO. 

We can't seem to come to an agreement on which system to use, numeric or descriptive, and perhaps part of the problem is the difficulty in deciding exactly which grade  to pick. Maybe having fewer choices would result in more agreement and make the tag easier to use. 

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

2015-03-15 17:58 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri <[hidden email]>:
So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most exact and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: "Did you get through with transport mode x?" Possible answers are:
- no
- just barely
- with extra effort/concentration/some difficulty
- yes


while I believe this is a working approach, I think it should be (in some cases that come to mind) more granual spatially: often ways tend to be not uniform but have changing surface and other characteristics along the way, so I would split the way into smaller parts with common attributes / properties.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Kytömaa Lauri
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 16:58 +0000, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:

> So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most exact and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: "Did you get through with transport mode x?" Possible answers are:
> - no
> - just barely
> - with extra effort/concentration/some difficulty
> - yes

That is most certainly the info people want and need but I'd suggest
your approach may be a little too detailed. With (eg) four possible
states and a plan to describe just about every vehicle on the road, too
much data and too difficult to use.

I do believe we, as mappers, need to make some decisions, its not too
hard to divide our vehicles into, say, six or so categories and apply
just a yes/no to each. Yes, its error prone but the error would be only
one level and would still be infinitely more valuable than no info at
all.

David

> What constitutes "some difficulty" for each mode can be discussed more easily; i.e. for roller skates (never have) ruts, sett, tram tracks(?), but not curbs as such? These can be tabularized in the wiki later.
>
> If you're in a "regular sedan", you can steer around the potholes and slow down (i.e. "concentration"), but if the wheels have to follow a very narrow path or the bottom of the vehicle would hit the ground, it's "just barely" for regular sedans. Or whatever local conditions the mapper comes across.
>
> Surely, if the track is "just barely" traversable in a highly modified off road vehicle of brand Y with extras from brands Z and W, the driver of any other vehicle can assume they won't be able to use the track.
>
> I haven't drafted the actual tags in detail, but I do have used
> - police:mondeo=yes (originally as "here I saw a Mondeo use the footway", but later also "I've seen other vehicles drive here or it's obvious a normal car could physically use this")
> - police:mondeo=no
> - police:transporter:conditional=no @ (winter & 2wd)  ( as in "here I saw a VW Transporter fail to get up the incline on a footway")
>
> The keys for a more general "suitable for use" tagging would have a prefix, a separator character (probably ':'), the general vehicle category possibly followed by more details (either a model, or something like high clearance), and the optional accessories would use the :conditional syntax.
>
> known_suitable:motorcar = barely
> known_suitable:motorcar:911 = no
> known_suitable:motorcar:high_clearance = effort
> known_suitable:Range_Rover = yes
>
> The first driver can always add just the one tag that applies to their vehicle.
>
> This might seem like a lot of work, but we have time, and mappers; enough data will accumulate with patience.
>
>



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Current status of the key smoothness=*

brycenesbitt
Now a SURVEY would be fine, where multiple answers are allowed:

Mode: motorbike Date: 2015-01-01 Rating: Easy User:fester
Mode: car          Date: 2015-02-01 Rating: Easy User:fsdfsfs
Mode: motorbike Date: 2015-04-01 Rating: Impassable User:fester


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12