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

[Michael Collinson]

Ian,

+1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international 
perspective. I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and 
Sweden, also both countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely 
"alpine" and also came to the conclusion that what matters is the type 
of people wanting to use the path rather than specific physical 
attributes of the path. And particularly at the less hardcore end.  If 
one substitutes "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works in those countries 
as well, IMHO.

The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

- Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could 
include high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.

- Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension 
assisted wheel-chair)

- I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance, 
holding-on, hauling myself up).

- I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be 
nervous about falling off.

- Bring it on


I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without 
too many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS 
2156.1-2001 6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:

  * Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
  * Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
  * Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
  * Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
  * Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

Mike

On 2022-01-28 16:41, iansteer at iinet.net.au wrote:
>
> I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading 
> System.  It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire 
> Management - 
> https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system). 
> The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.
>
> It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, 
> QLD and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.
>
> I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a 
> “Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted 
> those tags without reference to me!)
>
> Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: 
> Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to 
> read the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the 
> AWTGS.  Other documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as 
> having 6 levels
>
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220128/153bbddc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mike.vcf
Type: text/vcard
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220128/153bbddc/attachment.vcf>