[OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access

[Dave Stubbs]

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Ari Torhamo <ari.torhamo at gmail.com> wrote:

> pe, 2008-05-02 kello 00:28 +0200, Martin Simon kirjoitti:
> > Am Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 13:37:32 schrieb Andy Robinson (blackadder):
>
> > OK, you're totally right at this, it seems difficult to define structure
> of
> > road surfaces - several proposals in the wiki exist, but none seems to
> have
> > seen broad use in actual mapping - in short, I do'nt have a solution.
> > But the need for some reliable, robust and versatile surface tagging
> method
> > seems to be there, as there are ~3 proposals in the wiki to renew/extend
> > surface tags.
> > And I really do think its better to do this now than to re-tag specific
> > vehicle-based tags in the future.
>
> Just an idea: what about having a separate tag for the "driveability" of
> the surface. Even when the surface material is basically the same, the
> driving experience with a bicycle my vary relatively much. The
> driveability tag could be used when driving experience is different from
> what one might expect based on the track type or the surface material of
> the track. For example, grades like -1, -2, or +1 and +2 could be used
> when the driving experience is worse or better than expected.
>

The main problem with this kind of idea is it's complete subjectivity. The
bike_suitability style of tag is less of a problem because there's a fairly
clear reference point: ie: would you be happy cycling a road bike down this
path, or would the path break it (or you)? So while subjective, people will
generally be working from a similar baseline.

But when you start applying -2..+2 grading, you need to calibrate everyone's
expectations of what that actually means somehow. How do I know this is a +2
instead of a +1? Inevitably what this entails is writing some kind of guide
where you detail all the things you should look at to determine the score.
By the time you've done this you've probably come up with a reasonable
surface tagging scheme you could have actually used in the first place :-)
It might be something you could then apply to a map rendering to indicate
how good a route is without providing the fine detail.


Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080502/a269388e/attachment.html>