<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dave F. wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4AAD00C6.1080005@madasafish.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
Paul Johnson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1252792879.6830.35.camel@ursa-minor.network.ursamundi.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:30 +0100, Dave F. wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Imagine a map with just the cycleways (a VERY bare map) as some people
seem to want. Imagine trying to follow a cycle route through a big city
using just that information. Any cyclist would be lost within 5 minutes!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That argument wrongfully assumes all cities suck at providing adequate
routes for all commuters, which is demonstratably incorrect for much of
the pacific northwest and europe.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm a bit bemused by your reply which seems irrelevant:<br>
You weren't talking about <i>all </i>commuters, just cyclists. It's
you who wants all roads other than those for cyclists removed.<br>
Therefore my previous comments.<br>
<br>
I'm fully aware of how complete urban areas are mapped.<br>
When people read a map they need information about what is come up
ahead of & around them. As I said before, this includes info other
than just cycle routes.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
"
I'm fully aware of how complete urban areas are mapped."<br>
<br>
I should add that we should be planning for how complete the map is
going to be in the <i>future</i>.<br>
<br>
You're suggesting we should be leave relevant information out purely
because it <i>may </i>not be mapped now, which is clearly ridiculous.<br>
</body>
</html>