I'd be inclined to map the whole thing as smoothness=horrible if that's the dominant impression. The worst bits look like some I've seen near Marlborough (Wilts) where it was off-road motorbikes that had done the damage, and still were on the day I was there pushing my mountain bike.
Other bits look like hard work on a gravel bike or similar, but doable at the moment. Little bits of "horrible" micro-mapped in a the middle of a better grade of smoothness would be an awful lot of effort to help no one. Get BlueMail for Android On 14 May 2025, 19:13, at 19:13, Jon Pennycook <[email protected]> wrote: >Looking at some of the photos, it seems to be surface=mud or >surface=dirt, >tracktype=grade5, smoothness=horrible - unless it varies along the way. >The >previous mapper seems to be uncertain - the tracktype value varies from >grade1 to grade5. > >Jon > > >On Wed, 14 May 2025, 18:56 Adam Snape, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In general it's fine for the mapper to map the right of way and for >the >> access tags to reflect the legal access. >> >> That said, BOAT definitely shouldn't be in the name and the previous >> mapper cited a copyrighted OS map as source, so we should look to >confirm >> that with a more suitable source. >> >> As for discouraging inappropriate routing, I'd be checking the >tracktype >> tag was correct and adding appropriate surface smoothness and maybe >even >> MTB:scale tags to accurately describe the nature of the route >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Adam >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-GB mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
