[Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

Friedrich Volkmann bsd at volki.at
Thu Mar 12 06:39:43 UTC 2015

On 11.03.2015 23:23, David wrote:
> I am a little unsure what the problem is with the pictures. Could you be a bit more specific please Friedrich ?
> It would be very hard to have a set of pictures that cover every case but, as Jan said, if we are only one level out, thats still very useful information. Honestly, while not very clear, the pictures look about right to me.

Ok, let's see...

Now that I look at it in detail, I realize that the verbal descriptions
might be flawed too. When there's a category /excellect/ "usable by roller
blade, skate board and all below", there should also be one even better
category like /perfect/ "desirable for roller blade and skate board". Raugh
asphalt is usable by roller blade, but fine asphalt is desireable.
Similarly, fine gravel roads are usable by racing bikes, but not desirable.
surface=ground may be usable by racing bikes when dry, but certainly not
when wet. All of this should be pointed out in the text.

BTW: Rollerblade is a trade mark. Better change that to roller skates and/or
inline skates.

One more text issue: the term "city bike" should be replaced by something
like standard/normal/conventional bicycle, because a city bike is a mountain
bike plus lights and reflectors, thus more robust than a trecking bike.

I'll be numbering the pictures from #1 ("excellent" line) to #8
("impassable" line).

#1 is a scanned paper photo or diapositive. You see dirt and scratches, and
the picture is not quite sharp. But the content of the picture seems
alright. It's intermediate quality asphalt with patches. Not optimal, but
easily usable for all.

#2 What part of the road do they mean? The carriageway looks similar to #1.
(No patches, but on the other hand there's a gully grid.) Or do they mean
the bus stop? Or the footway? The footway surface seems well suited for
roller skates and skateboard too, although some grass creeps in, and you
need to beware the seams and poles.

I suggest a photo depicting sand surface or very coarse-grained and uneven
asphalt or concrete.

#3 This looks like a ford or a temporarily flooded area. The photo should
probably go to the highway=ford wiki page. If you leave away the water, the
road is perfectly suitable for racing bikes, although the dirt indicates
that it may be even more dirty at seasons, making it less usable then.

I suggest a photo of a road with fine gravel or compacted gravel surface

#4 is a big step from #3. This is indeed unusable for racing bikes, but
usable for trecking bikes and normal cars (although vegetation is near to
the limit). This photo seems to match the description, but I am not shure
about rikshaws.

#5 This track looks like the same as #4 or even better because there's less
vegetation and the surface looks harder and less prone to waterlogging. You
do not need a high-clearance vehicle for that track.

I suggest to move the #5 photo to #4, and to use a photo of a track with
10-20 cm deep ruts (but otherwise similar to #4) for #5.

#6 This shows a track you can use with a normal car. The grass will make
some noise, but it will not damage the car. You can add this photo to the
smoothness=bad examples, i.e. 2 rows up.

The photo for smoothness=horribly should show a very uneven and either muddy
or densely vegetated road.

#7 This photo looks like a clip, you don't see the whole way. Just throw
that photo away.

#8 This looks smooth enough for MTB. It might be to steep to drive uphill,
but experienced MTBers drive this downhill no matter how steep it is.

Steepness (see incline=*) is an important factor we should consider. A track
may be smooth enough for a sports car, but so steep that only a tractor can
make it. I think that we should explicitly include or exclude steepness in
the smoothness definition. Opinions?

Friedrich K. Volkmann       http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

More information about the Tagging mailing list