3 ms·
Some more specific feedback to the actual site, not the concept. The routes need more content - maps are important, but without ideas of what I am going to enc
by cullenking 16y ago
Some more specific feedback to the actual site, not the concept. The routes need more content - maps are important, but without ideas of what I am going to encounter, descriptions, titles, categories, it's not too helpful. Categories are important as well, because there are so many different styles of riding. Out on my dualsport, I don't care if I hit bad pavement (I might actually WANT bad or no pavement). On my R6, I want the smoothest pavement possible with the best banked turns.
- bigsassy 16y agoI agree about the content. I even have the content available. Right now roads are rated on: 1) How much variation they have (i.e. twistyness) 2) Do they go past a body of water 3) Do they go through a state park All of this data is available to show to the user, I just haven't added any UI elements to display them. It'll be particularly nice once I add more scoring criteria for roads (like elevation changes, view sheds (i.e. seeing a mountain range out in the distance), land coverage surrounding road, historical landmarks, drive past old awesome buildings, etc). I don't know of any data source for pavement quality, outside of roads being marked as paved or unpaved :(
- cullenking 16y agoWe ask users for pavement quality when they create a route on ridewithgps, and allow people to search using it. ArcGIS allows searching for gravel/pavement, but nothing as fine grained as being properly banked, chipseal vs blacktop vs potholed etc etc