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

[Tom Brennan]

I think the AWTGS is a reasonable starting point for a trail/track 
difficulty scale that's relevant to Australia.

However, I wasn't clear whether Grade 5 was supposed to cover everything 
above Grade 4, or whether there were things harder than Grade 5.

If the former, I'd think there would need to be a better way of breaking 
down Grade 5. Otherwise, it will cover too wide a range of walks from 
the slightly rough to the genuinely hair-raising

If the latter, then there's a gap at the harder end.

Michael's categories below are also quite good (though I feel like the 
"push-chair/stroller" should be in the "elderly mother" category?!)

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

On 28/01/2022 5:18 pm, Michael Collinson wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au