[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

Tue Sep 20 17:04:59 UTC 2022

Hi Georg,

I mostly agree, except in one point: I totally did have steep 
mountainous paths in mind in the definition of highway=path, as long as 
regular people can walk them.

I think your highway=demanding_path tag instead of highway=scramble is a 
great idea!

How about this:

- keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people 
(this means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)
- introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.

Then, the secondary tags would be
demanding_path=via_ferrata
demanding_path=climbing
demanding_path=alpine_hiking
optionally demanding_path=scramble if the community decides this is a thing

Alternatively, if we don't want the secondary tag to be orthogonal, as 
you desired, we could instead use:
via_ferrata=yes/no
climbing=yes/no
alpine_hiking=yes/no
(scramble=yes/no)

Best,
m

On 20/09/2022 17:00, Georg wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> martianfreeloader, wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 10:52:06 GMT+0200
> 
>> I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should
>> be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to
>> look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags. > ...
>> I think a new generic highway=<some_new_value> is a very good idea.  > 
>> It would encompass any way which requires at least one of these:
>> - special skill
>> - extraordinary courage
>> - special equipment.
> 
> I agree to your underlying motivation 👍 To understand what exactly
> people would expect from highway=path, I looked up
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path and interestingly, *wikipedia has no
> definition for "path" but only for less generic terms,* so bridle path,
> foodpath, sidewalk, trail, or desire path (which seems to include
> typical mountain hiking paths).
> 
> *Maybe we as OSM community shall never have introduced the generic
> highway=path but only more specialized ones. Maybe we shall correct that
> and deprecate highway=path.* Why? Because in different areas, an "usual
> path" in local understanding will have quite different characteristics.
> 
> In flat areas like northern Germany, a path is usually not at all
> demanding. Many can even be driven with stroller or city bike – mostly
> limited by how soft the ground is and the width between vegetation.
> 
> In mountain regions like Alps, Atlas or Andes, connections between two
> points are sometimes in flat areas like valley or tableland, so ways
> with same characteristics as above, but sometimes paths hit hurdles
> caused by the terrain, like crossing a field of big rock blocks, high
> steps, a steep grass area, etc. Many of such paths are often not created
> for tourists, but are traditional connections. They were managed over
> hundreds of years by average people with no extraordinary equipment or
> skills, they can be used by young kids and elderly locals – even if
> containing scrambling sections.
> 
> So, such a mountain path obviously matches your definition, i.e. your
> definition is probably including "too many" paths for the purpose you
> had in mind 😕 Such mountain paths also perfectly match
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path as well as
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampelpfad which tell both _"small trail
> created ... by human or animal traffic. The path usually represents the
> shortest or the most easily navigated route between an origin and
> destination"_ and the DE page makes it even more clear (translation by
> me) _"paths represent the shortest route, even if one can proceed only
> slowly"._ Both do not require you can walk upright without ever using
> hands or without facing the risk of falling down a deep cliff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your underlying motivation and suggestion.
> 
> martianfreeloader wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 13:42:47 GMT+0200
>> Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag:
>>
>> `highway=scramble`
>>
>> with secondary tags like
>>
>> `scramble=via_ferrata`
>> `scramble=climbing`
>> `scramble=alpine_hiking`
> 
> *I strongly suggest to use use a more generic term than scramble.* Why?
> As I learned in the discussion, "scramble" has a quite well defined
> meaning in some parts of the world, so it creates assumptions that will
> neither be met for a narrow but horizontal tunnel nor for a climbing
> UIAA grade VI – so we'd end up exactly with the same situation as we now
> have and as described in the first sentence of this mail 🙄 Maybe the
> more generic term could just be "path" combined with certain "qualities"
> like e.g. highway=easy_path and highway=demanding_path? I don't mind
> whether highway=demanding_path also contains paths with considerable
> incline, which is told in secondary tag, or we'd have a third
> alternative highway=mountaineering (or other term).
> 
> 
> I like the approach to split current highway=path into two different
> values that are thought from view of map & data consumers. I also assume
> many data & map consumers would appreciate if the primary tag alone made
> it easy to distinguish between easy paths "everyone" can go without
> further research and one "more demanding" path type where you better
> look at the additional tags before deciding whether you want to walk
> that path in your individual situation.
> 
> *Of course, we'd need a definition allowing to tell apart the easy from
> the demanding path type. Here's a first suggestion.* It includes
> feasibility with a stroller or city bike – well knowing both are
> vehicles while we are [also] talking about ways for [purely] pedestrian
> use – because their usage limit is hopefully much less individual than
> "easy to walk" or "requiring use of hands".
> 
> Easy path: A path that
> * matches current definition of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath (mainly: a
> highway not fitting to another value like track, footway or bridleway
> and open to non-motorized vehicles)
> * poses no considerable risks, so e.g. no hazards like quicksand and not
> directly next to a deep cliff without railing
> * can be walked upright without use of hands for balance or propelling
> by the vast majority of humans that are able to walk and have sufficient
> eyesight & cognitive abilities to recognize and cope with obstacles like
> branches [these restrictions compared to "walkable by everyone" shall
> avoid that even very easy paths would not qualify because e.g. some
> people won't walk it because of vertigo, or all blind people would face
> considerable risks not detectable by their stick]
> * could be driven – if path has an incline, downhill – with a bike or an
> empty stroller that are not of the most fragile type, if path's
> smoothness was good and with sufficient for the vehicle ["downhill"
> avoids discussion about single steps, "empty" avoids discussions due to
> level of risk/courage perception associated with babies, hypothetical
> values for smoothness & width avoid discussion that actual path can't be
> done by stroller]
> 
> Everything else becomes a demanding path, so for example
> * crawling sections, e.g. in tunnels
> * a mostly flat path over demanding surface like big rock blocks
> https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dXQsIyml3FM/WZCOAtfMVXI/AAAAAAAAB9I/Bp6aVmpxlg09iwC9gBMvawtZj6uID35CACEwYBhgL/s1600/DSCN0615.JPG 
> 
> 
> * a path over "questionable" bridges like
> https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/gefallener-baumstamm-als-br%C3%BCcke-%C3%BCber-einem-fluss-im-gr%C3%BCnen-wald-handarbeit-155342057.jpg 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consequence, in some regions, most paths will become demanding paths.
> 
> Additional tags could carry more detailed information about what makes
> that path demanding, e.g. height=0.5m or hazard=falling for a bridge
> section.
> 
>> Tertiary tags would be:
>> `via_ferrate_scale=*`
>> `climbing:grade:uiaa=*`
>> `sac_scale=*`
>>
>> The secondary tags would be orthogonal. In case of conflict, the  > 
>> most common use of the scramble should be tagged. The tertiary > tags
> can be used side by side if applicable.
> 
> I'd strongly favor that already secondary tag may carry multiple values,
> because it would first time make it a no-brainer to map ways with
> multiple usage possibilities – which is quite often in the fuzzy
> overlapping zone of difficult hike & MTB trail, a scramble, easy via
> ferrata and easy climb.
> 
>> I suggest we first decide whether we find the general concept of
>> highway=scramble to be useful and want to introduce it at all. In case
>> we answer this positively, then focus on working out the exact details
>> like what's the exact sac scale threshold, etc.
> 
> 👍
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Georg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging