Posted by Ken on July 09, 1998 at 07:52:57:
In response to Ruts and more ruts, written by Roger V on July 09, 1998 at 00:35:31
] OK, so the word "rut" was perhaps not the best term to use, but what I was talking about was a lane with two relatively wide strips of bare ground separated by a strip of grass or other vegetation. This is the pattern most often associated with motor vehicles.
Mostly because that is what we are used to. I've seen hiking trails with very little vehicular traffic in the same state of disrepair, believe me. The question, I guess, is how hard is the soil & would there still be grass in the middle of it or not? If it's hard enough, it would look used, but wouldn't have much in the way of ruts, and any grass would be pretty straggly. If it saw a lot of cart traffic pulled by a single horse, that too would keep the grass down.
On the other hand, one could argue that regardless of real physical patterns, it would look truer not to show something that folks would associate with a late 20th century country lane.
- A possible explanation? Carolyn B 21:59:43 7/09/98 (5)
- That's It Ken 07:58:19 7/10/98 (4)
- What about.... Carolyn B 08:42:11 7/10/98 (3)
- Wagons etc Earlene 05:30:02 7/12/98 (0)
- Roads, ruts, horses, wagons.... Roger V 12:39:53 7/10/98 (1)
- Now if we could just get an NSF grant to study this ; -) *nfm* Carolyn B 20:12:55 7/10/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.