On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
+1 !! _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
