ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 2 03:24:03 GMT 2009
Mike Harris schrieb:
> ... And by the way ... Does 'good' mean:
I guess you want to missunderstand this tag.
> Good for a motorcar? (I know of local unclassified ("OS yellow roads") that
> cannot be driven except in a 4WD (some appear on my TomTom even).
> Good for a horse and cart? (All Restricted Byways in England should be
> suitable - but many are not - too narrow or have stiles).
First of all, as you are talking a lot about horses indicates to me that
you not even have read the proposal page. It explicitly mentions: "the
physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles"
Do you know a horse with wheels? Do you know a *walker* with wheels?
> Good for a horse? (How good a show jumper for those stiles - see above?)
> Good for a bicycle? (Many bridleways would be fine on a horse and yet
> impossible on a bike - even where bikes are allowed)
> Good for a walker? (How fit - what constitutes 'normal' ability? - is a
> stile 'good' or only a kissing-gate?)
> ... In short "good" (or "horrible") is almost entirely subjective (and also
> language-dependent) and even using a 1-5 scale is still subjective (is the
> mapper thinking like a walker? A cyclist? An off-road quad-biker? A horse?
> ... I would probably tend to "vote" or "opinionate" against any proposal
> using a subjective adjective as the value for a key.
Please READ the proposal and then try again ...
P.S: I'm not involved in this proposal and I probably will only rarely
use it. But criticise it for stuff that the proposal was never meant for
is a bit strange ...
More information about the talk