Um, didn’t your interpretation feel wrong? Even the second value (good
) looks wrong to me then? I’m not a skates/skateboard user either, but I do believe that they would be able to pass through a section of smoothness=good
asphalt, although with reduced comfort and speed.
Do you disagree (i.e. do you think they’d instead be forced to turn back and return home as it is “completely unpassable” to them)?
Also, would you call car whose engine shuts down every 2 minutes and you have to restart it “usable”? After all, you’d be able to reach you destination eventually. What about if maximum speed you could reach on some terrain in a car was 15 km/h with heavy turbulences? (spoiler: I wouldn’t!)
(…and other examples of “no need to slow down in a car” and similar) As others have mentioned, and has been pointed out several times before in previous discussions, smoothness
tag is not car-centric, nor had it ever been, nor should it be. It would be appreciated if the attempts to make the smoothness
tag usable only for cars (and nobody else) would not be constantly resurrected (or does it only seem that way).
Yes, for average car user there is no usable difference between e.g. excellent
and good
(referencing previous discussion), I get it. But for skates there is a difference, which is why excellent
exists as a value. The granularity should be there for all users, and not skewed for cars only.
So the high end of smoothness
scale is skate-oriented, high-middle range is bicycle-oriented, low-middle range is car-oriented, and low end is more like ATV-oriented. The whole smoothness
tag is not about cars only, and especially not only about some specific class of the urban car. (e.g. while not owning either, I can imagine that the two roads what might feel like the same road smoothness to Landrover driver are likely not feeling the same for Tesla Roadster driver)
So while for e.g. your particular car that bad
might feel the same as intermediate
for that example, for many other users (e.g. bicycles - including two of mine) if definitely does not. Thus it is inappropriate to use the same smoothness
value for both surfaces, as I would be using one road, but not the other. If they are tagged the same, I cannot tell such crucial difference. (Just as it would be inappropriate if I - say - suggested that any smoothness=horrible
or very_horrible
pictures should be in same category as smoothness=impassable
, because they behave the same for my trekking bicycle).
Those StreetComplete pictures seems to match StreetComplete descriptions (and vehicle icons) rather well in my experience, at least in English (and Croatian). Are you ignoring those StreetComplete text descriptions too, and going with some other (wiki?) definitions instead? Or are in your StreetComplete language the texts in heavy mismatch with the pictures, so you only ignore the pictures but accept the texts?
Do note that if you use StreetComplete quest to tag smoothness
, data consumers can at best infer that you followed StreetComplete definitions of the tag. (it is of course unfortunate if different editors might tag different things with same tag, but that is additional problem to the one primarily being discussed here. I do know that enormous amount of effort has gone in StreetComplete quest getting to the point where it follows the wiki but is simple and usable, and am appalled that it seems to have been for nothing – if even people who participated as much you are ignoring major part [or all?] of the result. It makes me even less hopefull that this thread would fare better).
Not. While I have just been mentioned and have only started on this specific reincarnation of the smoothness
thread, I’ll try to give the thread at least some more attention in the coming weeks if I can muster the time away from more productive tasks, but honestly, with its umpteen reincarnation of the mostly the same subject; it is becoming a time sink with ever increasing cost/benefit ratio. (I mean, I barely properly addressed first third of the first post of the thread with this behemoth. I’m not even sure if the effort of going through all of that would be actually end up being beneficial, even if we discount the amount of effort!)
Perhaps we should just slap {{Questioned}} template on that wiki and document what the disagreements actually are; that seems much easier and less controversial task and should inform the data consumers about (seemingly unavoidable) different interpretations of tag values.
I mean, even we all happen to come to some consensus here on the forum what the tag should mean (which seems quite unlikely to me nowadays, unless one “wins” by exhausting the others, not to mention that I am much more of descriptive then prescriptive type when it comes to OSM wiki tag documentation) there are so many mappers using the smoothness
tag that changing the wiki definitions at this date won’t have much useful effect, if any. The dozen or so people participating here is sooo much smaller then the number of mappers using the tag. Regardless of what conclusion is reached here, I guess that most people will likely keep tagging what they always did, nobody is going to resurvey all the tags made with old definitions, and further wiki changes would likely just further increase the volatility of the tag definition (and thus make it even less usable for data consumers).