<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">The sac=scale is a attribute of trails. <div><br></div><div>Yet we do not explicitly state “this is a trail” </div><div><br></div><div>We should have a path=trail subtag. </div><div><br></div><div>The presence or absence of a sac_scale Tag shouldn’t mean it is a trail. </div><div><br></div><div>Imagine we had no highway=track. That we dumped all tracks into highway=service. That is what we are doing now with trails. </div><div><br></div><div>Would you want to depend on the tracktype=* tag for denoting that it is, in fact, a track? At least track type has “track” in the key name.</div><div>If someone didn’t set it, it would map like the parking lots and alleyways in cities. Madness. </div><div><br></div><div>Sac_scale is an arcane attribute for hiking nerds - it is great to have, but shouldn’t be the tag that differentiates a hiking trail from a sidewalk in OSM. That should have been a separate tag from day one, but we are now stuck with the monstrosity that is path=.</div><div><br></div><div>At least subkey it. </div><div><div><br><br><div dir="ltr">Javbw</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On May 24, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">=path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right now you can use sac_scale=hiking,mountain_hiking,demanding_mountain_hiking to indicate if a path is a hiking trail. Though you can't really currently say something is not a hiking trail. </div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:01, Kevin Kenny <<a href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging<br>
<<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to find on a sidewalk or playground way.<br>
><br>
> Mixing trails and sidewalks in the path key is as horrible as mixing up runways and train tracks in a “highway=not_car” way.<br>
<br>
Yeah. But it's so entrenched that trolltags are probably the only way<br>
out of the mess. And sac_scale is _surely_ not the right trolltag! The<br>
problem with sac_scale is that it's an impossible scale. I'm told that<br>
<a href="https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533</a> is still only a 2 out of 6 on that<br>
scale, and that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y5_lbQZJwQ</a> is still<br>
only a 3. Note that one misstep on either of those trails can easily<br>
mean death.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div> <a href="https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533">https://youtu.be/VKsD1qBpVYc?t=533</a> I would tag as sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, my rule of thumb is anything where the average person would need to use their hands to get over an obstacle is demanding_mountain_hiking. This is what the wiki says too "exposed sites may be secured with ropes or chains, possible need to use hands for balance".</div><div><br></div><div>Anything that doesn't need hands, but has a fall hazard/is exposed would be sac_scale=mountain_hiking (assuming it's not alpine).</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>