I’m wondering what is the general opinion on this. This would make cobblestone no longer a superset of of sett and sett no longer required to be regular at all times. Paving_stones: smooth tightly-fitting natural stones or artificial blocks, usually forming a regular pattern Sett: large natural stones cut to a flat top, usually jointed and forming a regular pattern Pebblestone: loose small rounded natural stonesĬobblestone: jointed large rounded natural stones As such, I believe the wiki definitions could be more broadly defined as: It has also been suggested that a surface for the Brazilian polyhedral pavement should be chosen according to its typical smoothness, with paving_stones being the smoothest and cobblestone the least smooth, which in my opinion would make the polyhedral pavement a type of sett. It has been suggested that, because gaps are tight and the surface is quite flat, that they actually resemble what in OSM is mapped as surface=paving_stones. This Telegraph news article (UK) (mentions setts, cobbles and flagstones)īased on this, it seems to me that the Portuguese pavement would be better described as a type of sett than a type of cobblestone (such as cobblestone:flattened). WikiDiff (mentions Encyclopædia Britannica) It seems like setts are generally viewed as a type of cobblestone, as currently written in the wiki, but several sources cite that cobblestones are natural and smooth while setts are stones worked to a cuboid shape: In trying to achieve clearer definitions for surface=*, I’ve started two discussions, one on Portuguese pavement, and another on a more specific type of pavement technically called “ polyhedral” in Brazil.
0 kommentar(er)
