[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 30, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Rob Savoye <rob at senecass.com> wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200
>> From: Daniel Westergren <westis at gmail.com>
> 
>> *An additional issue:*
>> 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale)
>> to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the
>> route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and there is not enough
>> nuance in the lowest levels. Could the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS),
>> Australian Walking Track Grading System and others complement or expand on
>> sac_scale?
> 
>  As a climber, I don't think we'd want to apply YDS to hiking trails.
> To me, YDS should only used for technical routes requiring equipment
> (usually). I think "mountain_hiking" is what you can do without
> equipment, even if occasionally using your hands for balance.
> "alpine_hiking" is when I'm up near or above treeline, often in snow or
> large scree fields. A fuzzier category are climber access trails that
> most hikers shouldn't use. We have many of those around here.

As a Sierra Club member in Southern California (where the YDS originated long before my time), a hiker and a former climber I must mention that 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the YDS are basically levels of difficulty in hiking. Climbers really only work with 5 and its various subdivisions. Ruling out the whole scale simply because one level of it is dedicated to climbing is a bit much.

OTOH, the Australians have a bush walking scale that does not, from what I’ve seen, include levels for climbing so that might be choice that does not automatically connote a different outdoor activity.

> 
>> Would this be a fair summary? What have I missed? Who is interested in
>> continuing this work in a smaller group? Or should we continue to spam this
>> mailing list?
> 
>  I'd be interested in a working group on this, as my map data and maps
> are used by multiple rural fire departments and SAR groups. You wouldn't
> be surprised by how many people we rescue that misjudged the trail
> difficulty... For us though, looking at the subtags helps determine the
> type of response and equipment. sac_scale is a bit open to
> interpretation based on one's experience, but better than nothing.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200530/a32af83b/attachment-0001.sig>