On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi> writes:
>
> > It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of
> > "not paved trails through forest". Those which come with man applied
> > surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically
> > surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be rather level
> > and easy to walk on and reasonably free from obstacles, and those where
> > the conditions are close to unknown (given unfamiliar terrain), might be
> > easy/ok but might as well require negotiating tricky parts or even
> > backtracking. It's important aspect for (non-computerized) routeplanning
> > to know this difference.
>
> That's fair, but I think it's not really about artificial surface. It's
> about whether someone with some familiarity with hiking in general is
> going to be able to follow the trail without too much trouble. But I'm
> afraid that this is a continuum more than a yes/no sort of thing.
Indeed, it's true that some set of trails can (and likely are) passable
for many but there are more variable which affect their usability. It's
about providing reasonable set of ways that _at minimum_ is likely is
reasonable conditions (obviously there still can be problems with those
but it's much easier to predict with common sense than with forest
trails).
--
i.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
