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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging