osm at inbox.org
Tue Dec 8 17:06:25 GMT 2009
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
Seems to all be covered by:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging