[Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 16:58:45 GMT 2009


On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

>
> Not being a big bicycle rider, I have no idea what ways are "suitable for
> use" in bicycling.  And I suspect that's not an objective standard anyway.
> Suitability for use in bicycling is not binary.
>
>
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.

And that's just off the top of my head. Just because a rating doesn't have a
single measurement doesn't mean it's not objective.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20091209/3571a29c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list