Martin Simon wrote: >Sent: 01 May 2008 12:02 PM >To: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Wide tracks with cycle access > >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.
It was because of the difficulty of defining unpaved surfaces that this thread branched off. If you can come up with a method for tagging the make-up of natural surfaces then great, but its not easy in my view or I'd be using them already. Cheers Andy > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
