waldo000000 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 22:11:44 GMT 2009
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> 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 non-cyclists.
> Seems to all be covered by:
More information about the Tagging