Proposed features/smoothness

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal Key:smoothness is located at Key:smoothness.


Smoothness
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Chrischan
Tagging: smoothness=excellent, good, intermediate, bad, very_bad, horrible, very_horrible, impassable
Applies to: linear, area
Definition: physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles
Drafted on:
Proposed on: 2008-04-29
RFC start: 2008-05-30
Vote start: 2008-09-20
Vote end: 2008-11-02

Rationale

Provide a very narrow, yet sufficient classification scheme regarding the physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles. In my opinion, it is possible to adequately model this very important and broadly applicable property of ways (think of racing bikes, wheel chairs, skates, sports cars) by a very small set of values. The following table provides an overview of the proposed tags with an examplary set of vehicles. Please note that this proposal is *not* confined to this subset of wheeled vehicles. I rather propose that *any* wheeled vehicle perfectly fits into one of those categories, please correct me if I am wrong.

Applies to

highway=*

Tag, Values and Usage

After many talks on the talk page as of 2008-09-20 here is the last proposal

Proposal usable by :
smoothness=excellent roller blade/skate board and all below
smoothness=good racing bike and all below
smoothness=intermediate city bike/sport cars/wheel chair/Scooter and all below
smoothness=bad trekking bike/normal cars/Rickshaw and all below
smoothness=very_bad Car with high clearance/ Mountain bike without crampons and all below
smoothness=horrible 4wd and all below
smoothness=very_horrible tractor/ATV/tanks/trial/Mountain bike
smoothness=impassable no wheeled vehicles

Please note: No surface examples are given because the smoothness of a way should be assessed solely based on whether the way is usable by the vehicles mentioned above. This is my whole point: as a user of a certain road or path I am only interested whether I can drive on this road or not. If I sit on a racing bike, I am not interested whether the surface of a way is cobblestone or mud, just whether it is smooth enough to be used with a racing bike or not.

Default values

update 2008-10-05 : in the original proposal no default smoothness was proposed for highways, if you vote on this proposal, please specify if you agree with those defaults or not :

update 2008-11-01 default values where lately added so until a new proposal about that, there are no defaults

  • Without a smoothness values,

:highway tags are supposed to be tagged smoothness=good

except track that is supposed to be tagged smoothness=bad

A discussion can start in talk page to discuss the need, and the prefered defaults ( if any )

Sletuffe 11:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprecates

Nothing.

Currently, there are two tags dealing with the surface of a way: Key:surface and Key:tracktype. None of them could be extended for the purpose at hand. While "surface" might correctly distinguish between concrete and asphalt or between grass and cobblestone, this difference is not very important in terms of usability for wheeled vehicles. The "tracktype" on the other hand is confined to tracks and does not apply to other types of highways. Obviously, I think the "smoothness" of a way is the most essential information. It could actually be derived from "surface" and "tracktype", but this requires a complex and continually changing lookup table. I actually would propose deprecating at least the tracktype, but there is no need to do so: the proposed tag does not interfere with any of the tags mentioned before.

Tagwatch

Rendering

smoothness tagsedit

Related Discussions

Talk:Proposed_features/grade1-5

Talk:Key:surface

Talk:Proposed_features/Path

Comments

please use the discussion page

Voting

  • I approve this proposal. -- Sletuffe 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Driver2 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --sadam 23:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Walley 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. - a better track type tags would be more approprate -- Nik_Doof 12:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. because it does not help to identify the usability of ways at different weather conditions. --Lulu-Ann 15:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- vdb 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. since highway should all be smoothness=excellent, that's given, and for other cases it can already be infered from gradetype tracks. pjacquod 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. How exactly is it a given that all highway should be smoothness=excellent? See highway=track for example. Even if it should be, that doesn't make it so. --Hawke 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Aurel 23:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --JonathanMM 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Pweemeeuw 11:25, 28 September 2008
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Vrabcak 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Bmog 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Chrischan 08:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Bobkare 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. But I oppose the assumption of default values for the already existing highways without a smoothness tag. --De muur 09:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal, without prejudice, because of the lack of criteria for differentiating between the different classes. Chriscf 09:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. very_horrible is just silly --abunai 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Colin Marquardt 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --MrJott 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I'd like digit-values optional instead of string. ---jha- 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. But I oppose the assumption of default values for the already existing highways without a smoothness tag. --Benedikt.L 19:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. But I oppose the default value. --JND 14:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. GeoFranzi 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. SvenR 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Please do not adopt; reconsider. This is ill-defined, subjective, and very_horrible. --achadwick 17:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The entire proposal is messy, and makes no sense, the the values are far off, and basically I find this tag very little useful and extremely hard work to actually cover. Besides, for scarcely maintained roads, or roads in area with shifting ground or other similar facts, this will be highly periodical. The entire purpose should be covered in a completely differed way where needed. --Skippern 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- Gustavf 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. smoothness is a terrible name. And the values are also silly, particularly very_horrible. Gerv 14:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --katpatuka 08:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC) usage of key:smoothness can't be called scientific in terms of mapping. tracktype=* and surface=* should really be sufficient to describe a way's drivability.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- I support this proposal, though I'd prefer a definition that claims less absolute objectivity (see Talk:Key:smoothness) Robx 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Though I'd prefer a revised key:smoothness to clarify usage with examples. and I oppose single usage with the default value. --acrosscanadatrails 22:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-opening a 1 month voting period

I am about to re-open the vote until end of year. This is due to an ongoing edit war with someone and to many discussion on the talk list. I will move the discussion page to archives to start from a clean state. I want to make it clear that if the end result is no we excuse about users of smoothness, and we set it to rejected. If the answer is yes, then it will go to map features, just where it is now. Since we haven't seen very good reasons to change it's content, it is voted "as is" without any changes, so upper votes are still counted. And I would like that if the result is yes User:Chriscf stops his breakage of the template OR measures should be taken appropriatly Sletuffe 11:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone will be allowed to revert his vote. (of course)

What do you think ? if not objections, I will do it next week Sletuffe 11:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Marked as Approved after a 6 week voting-period by User:Phobie. (The original voting-period was set to 3 months by User:Sletuffe)

  • On 2008-11-02: 18 approved to 6 opposed votes
  • Vote on default values: 0 approved to 3 opposed votes
  • With late votes counted, as of 2009-01-20 there are 19 approved to 10 opposed votes.

There is still some discussion on the talk page!