On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not being a big bicycle rider, I have no idea what ways are "suitable for > use" in bicycling. And I suspect that's not an objective standard anyway. > Suitability for use in bicycling is not binary. > > IMHO, it wouldn't be hard to make objective assessments if that's what we wanted to do. You could have suitability=: *None: surface physically cannot be ridden on, big boulders, trees etc. *Poor: Can be ridden on, but only by keen mountain bikers. Grass, very rough gravel, frequent steps etc. *Average: Generally smooth, but with enough obstacles that you would take a better way if you had the choice. Wide enough to ride, but not comfortably pass a pedestrian. *Good: Wide, smooth, few obstacles. Kerbs generally eliminated. *Excellent: Wide, very smooth, long stretches of several kilometres between any kind of obstacle. Cyclists can comfortably pass at speed. Forbidden to non-cyclists.
And that's just off the top of my head. Just because a rating doesn't have a single measurement doesn't mean it's not objective. Steve
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
