[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Tom Brennan]

> If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so
> keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better
> suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into.
It's probably easier, if less correct, to use an existing tag that has 
supporting infrastructure.

But I will follow with some interest what happens on the US Trail Access 
Project - if they decide they need a new trail difficulty measure, I 
imagine that would be more relevant to Australia than the Swiss Alpine Club!
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

I haven't thought about an ideal AU track difficulty scale, though I 
imagine anything I come up with would have more than 4 grades!


In any case, it would seem to be a useful exercise to try and get as 
many of the optional tags as possible:
- trail_visibility
- sac_scale
- surface (my default preference is "ground")
- operator (for official/signposted trails)
- informal (for unofficial trails)
attached to bushwalking tracks. It would certainly help distinguish 
major tracks from minor tracks and might help a tiny bit in easing land 
managers' concerns.

cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

On 25/01/2022 8:36 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 18:32, Tom Brennan <website at ozultimate.com> wrote:
> 
>> On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note...
>>
>> Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail
>> difficulty in an Australian context?
>>
>> Personally, I hate the idea, because:
>> - Australia has little in the way of real mountains
>> - the values bear no relevance to Australian conditions
>> - we're tagging for the renderer
>>
>> However, I hate the idea *more* of having no trail difficulty measure,
>> and for better or worse:
>> - this one exists
>> - it's widely used, and rendered
>>
> 
> Branching out to a new thread, you've summed it up perfectly.
> 
> If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so keep
> using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better suited to
> Australia which data consumers can start opting into.
> 
> As a rule of thumb, anything that requires using your hands I tag
> sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, anything that has fall hazards or
> exposed areas on the trail but don't need hands sac_scale=mountain_hiking,
> and anything else that you'd generally consider bushwalking (uneven
> surface) sac_scale=hiking.
> 
> If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be something like:
> 
> technicality=0-3
> 
> 0. Well formed, even surface (could almost walk it blindfolded).
> 1. Uneven surface, trip hazards from rocks, tree roots etc.
> 2. Large steps, long steps, may be slippery (wet, mossy or loose surface),
> likely need to use hands for balance, low or tight sections that you need
> to crouch
> 3. Short sections where you're almost pulling your whole body weight with
> your arms (with or without a hand rope). Highest level short of proper rock
> climbing.
> 
> by usual footwear people would wear:
> 
> 0. thongs
> 1. joggers
> 2. hiking shoes
> 3. hiking shoes
> 
> by baby carrier accessibility:
> 
> 0. okay for baby/child carriers
> 1. okay for baby/child carriers
> 2. using a baby/child carrier may not be viable
> 3. definitely can't use a baby/child carrier
> 
> sac_scale mixes in navigation skill needed, steepness, fall hazard, trail
> markings, snow/glaciers, equipment like ice axes, whereas my scheme here is
> more evaluating mobility.
> 
> We have tags for rungs, ladders, trail_visibility and route markings
> (trailblazes) already.
> 
> In the Australian context there's also probably remoteness measure, but
> these would be too subjective to tag on individual ways and probably could
> simply be a function of distance to nearest facilities.
> 
> 0. urban bushwalks
> 1. not too remote, mostly day walks
> 2. remote or multiday walks
>