<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Balaitous wrote <br> <BR><div><div>1. Re: Proposition for a classification of path (Balaitous)</div><div> </div><div>> Also, the proposed path types would classify any path that ends in a cul-de-sac as the least-used and least-maintained category, which isn't necessarily the case.<br>> <br>> When I say "cul-de-sac" I refer to paths that go nowhere, like this :<br>> <br>> At the beginning, there look good, but there are more and more bad, and<br>> at the end there simply disappear !<br>> <br>> I have corrected :<br>> "This path can be end in cul de sac without any POI."</div><div> </div><div>I dont see why you would make a definition like this, since theres a path grade 1 - 5 option.</div><div>For instance in the situation of Cirque de Gavarnie, <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.6973&lon=-0.0017&zoom=14&layers=M">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.6973&lon=-0.0017&zoom=14&layers=M</a> theres a path with cul du sac, since a hiker wont climb up, but the path will be well maintaned. A path with a cul dus sac with POI ! And there will be more.</div><div>I would tag it grade 5 without hesitation. But theres one point I like to ad to this discussion if you want to build a new order. </div><div>What about the quality of a track usable for less valid or invalid people and thats not just the pavement or the lack of it but also about space.</div><div> </div></div> </div></body>
</html>