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

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Nicely thought out!
>
> Would you also add in River Crossing, possibly as 3, pushing climbing up
> to 4?
>

Good point. River crossings are important to consider and do affect the
overall technicality of the walk. I would consider river crossings fitting
into level 2, as they are similar (large steps, long steps, slippery,
likely need hands for balance).

I would support a new tag to describe each river crossing, we have already:

- bridge=yes (where you can walk over)
- tunnel=culvert (when the waterway goes under the walkway)
- ford=stepping_stones (creek crossing, but stepping stones exist so you
won't usually get wet)
- ford=yes (which on a highway=footway/path is saying it's a creek/river
crossing where the waterway flows over the path or the path goes through
the river/creek)

Obviously river conditions change, but I think it's useful to tag what's
usually the case:

1. creek crossing where generall the water level is so low that you won't
have water ingress in your shoes
2. creek crossing where your body will stay dry but you'll want to take
your shoes off if you prefer to keep them dry
3. river crossing where your body will get wet, may have a rope to help you
cross, but you can wade through the water and won't usually need to swim
4. river crossing where you'll need to swim across

I don't like using numbers as values as they aren't self explanatory but I
can't think of short terms you could use for tag values.

I've always thought of ford as more being a road was built and the
watercourse flows over that road, whereas walking it's more usually the
track stops/ends at either end and you're going through the watercourse,
maybe it's just semantics though.


>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> How about water? In an Oz context, heat / thirst is often a bigger problem
> than cold, so would you have some form of tag for availability of water
> resupply? (apart from just having rivers / streams mapped)
>

Yes that's part of it, but I think it's best to keep the tag as narrow and
possible and not mix in orthogonal measures. You could have a well formed
even surface walk but very remote and you need supplies, likewise you could
have a walk which needs pulling your body weight up, but you don't need any
supplies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220126/f0a4bd35/attachment.htm>