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

[Warin]

On 26/1/22 19:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
> 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:
>
0 creek/river crossing where there is usually no water.
> 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.


Some 'fords' have pipes under them to take the usual water flow off the 
road/path. I still map them as 'fords'.. as that is what they resemble.

>
>
>         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
>

I would think something on the ease of communication?

1. Good cell phone coverage (it does not matter which provider when 
calling 000/112)

2 Cell phone coverage on the peaks only, the peaks being frequent.

3 PLB advised as cell phone coverage is too sparse or non existent.

>
>     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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220126/226211f2/attachment-0001.htm>