On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Seems to all be covered by: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
