[Talk-GB] “No path”

[Edward Catmur]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 at 15:49, Dudley Ibbett <dudleyibbett at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Just seen this article in today’s Guardian:
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/hiking-app-alltrails-changes-route-rescue-three-walkers-lake-district
>
> I’m not sure if this is relevant to the data in OSM but it does seem to
> look like a footway/path on the main map if I have correctly located it.
> According to the article, the Mountain rescue team describe it as “no path”
> so it would seem reasonable to ensure the tagging is correct. Perhaps
> someone who has walked this route can review the tagging.
>

It looks like there's an ongoing edit war over
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127488902 and adjacent ways. They're
tagged sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking in the most tricky parts; what
more can we do? Looks like a better ascent than a descent; and there's what
looks like a decent path off the back so it'd be a nice circular walk for a
short day out.

The article doesn’t seem to be criticising the app but more it’s use and
> the understanding of its limitations.   I assume this means there may be a
> way across a screw slope but you should assume it might just be scree.
> I.e. no visible path on the ground.  As such, I assume the app doesn’t
> render trail visibility for example.
>

The tagging doesn't mention visibility, but I gather that the issue isn't
finding the trail, it's the following of it. Usually even in the worst
scree there's evidence of the route, though it can be difficult to follow
in poor light.

Dudley
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20230107/bb775da4/attachment.htm>