If we say that the url is "clean" from the end user, then I will break the mold a bit and say that the url is not intuitive at all, and they will never be, they are designed for a machine readable.
There is no standard for the format of the URL, so when navigating from site to site, people will never remember how to reach a resource only by remembering URLs and their "friendly syntax". We can argue about whether '?' and '&' or '/' to express how to define a resource using a URL; Is one method better than another? it does not matter. At the end of the day, the machine analyzes it and sends the result.
We must stop fooling ourselves with the fact that people actually introduce these things and understand that uri are for cars, not for people.
I still need to use / remember a uri that goes beyond the first few characters of the http://domain.com/ part of the address and I have been using the network for a long time. For which bookmarks. Nowhere on the website does it say that “change this part here in our URL to view” any other resource, because the url is usually undocumented and opaque.
Yes, make your uri SEO friendly (hell even if they change periodically), but forget about all the "human / clean" information about the resource identifier, this is a mystical pipe dream.
I agree with Vlion that the url should provide a unique mechanism for bookmarking the resource and returning to it (unlike some of these disgusting web 2.0 ajax / silverlight / flash creations), but the bookmark will never be for people to understand and To understand, It seems that quite a bit of concern and energy spent on dreaming about URL strategies that people can remember and enter is a waste of energy. Let me get up and solve real problems.
Sorry for the pomp, but there is a lot of nonsense on the Internet related to URLs that occur in certain circles that are just a waste of time.
Kev
source share