On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> IMHO, it wouldn't be hard to make objective assessments if that's what > we > >> 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 > take > >> a better way if you had the choice. Wide enough to ride, but not > comfortably > >> 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.) Steve
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
