[OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access

[Mike Collinson]

At 01:01 PM 1/05/2008, Martin Simon wrote:
>Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 11:56:16 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder):
>> Perhaps this is the better way to think about it. I generally don't like
>> subjective tagging, but in this instance giving an opinion about how usable
>> a section of way is might be better. If you simplified bike types into
>> "road", "hybrid" and "mtb" then I guess you could reasonably add say
>> suitability_road / suitability_hybrid / suitability_mtb tags, or join them
>> together as bicycle_suitability=road|hybrid|mtb and leave out any of the
>> values where you consider its not suitable.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Andy
>
>Hmm I think its way better to have a good description of the surface than 
>introducing vehicle-type specific usability-tags.
>
>This way the client (printing/routing-app, etc) can decide which sort of 
>surface to use.
>
>For example I have no problem using fine/medium gravel tracks with my "normal" 
>bike at all, while others on this list would tag such ways 
>as "bicycle_suitable=mtb"...
>And what about incline? is it part of the "bicycle_suitable" tag or not?
>
>I think its better to invest the time in better surface tagging than, rather 
>than subjectively tagging things that are only of use for one specific group 
>of users.

I get around subjective tagging / specific groups by doing 

description:bicycle=Ridable with a road bike but short stretches with tree roots

... looking ahead to the day when pop-ups become all the rage.

Mike