stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 03:21:37 GMT 2009
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
> >> IMHO, it wouldn't be hard to make objective assessments if that's what
> >> 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
> >> a better way if you had the choice. Wide enough to ride, but not
> >> 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:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
Yes...but again, OpenStreetMap is a *map*, it's not just a collection of
data. By all means, tag all this stuff, but higher-order interpretations of
that data are what *mapping* is about. Ideally, we would not invent our own
standards though, but apply existing ones.
(Also, more pragmatically: bicycle_suitability:average is a lot easier to
tag, and doesn't require marking up every time the surface changes from
gravel to crushed limestone, or changes width from 1.6m to 1.4m. Using all
those tags would be far too fine-grained.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging