Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Threads have crossed :-(, but as per their instructions that I mentioned > in the other post, the track overall is tagged to the highest > classification, so per the example they give: > > Example: Wineglass Bay, Tasmania > The technical assessment of the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk is then > translated into plain English. NOTE: Time > is the land manager’s best estimate of the amount of time a person of > average fitness, walking in good > conditions, will take to complete the walk. Time does not describe > difficulty. Because this is a Grade 3 walk > a high/low estimate is not required > In this example the technical assessment of the components distance, quality of path, quality of markings and experience required are all Grade 1 or 2. The gradient and steps are Grade 3. Therefore, as the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk has one or more Grade 3 components the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service have graded the walk at Grade 3. Grade 1: Distance Distance to complete walk is 2.4km. Quality of markings Clearly sign posted. Experience requires No experience required. Grade 2: Quality of path Formed track. Grade 3: Gradient Short steep hills. Time Time needed to complete track (hours/days) 1.5hrs. Steps Many steps. *Wineglass Bay Lookout walk could be described to the public as:* *Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk. Grade 3.* Symbol *Distance:* 2.4km *Gradient:* Short steep hills *Quality of path:* Formed track *Quality of markings:* Clearly sign posted *Experience required:* No experience required *Time:* 1.5hrs *Steps:* Many steps Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
Sorry, that wasn't supposed to send! :-( Back in a moment! Thanks Graeme On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> >> 2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For >> example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop >> even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a >> route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the >> higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter >> sections (based on the example)? >> > > Threads have crossed :-(, but as per their instructions that I mentioned > in the other post, the track overall is tagged to the highest > classification, so per the example they give: > > Example: Wineglass Bay, Tasmania > The technical assessment of the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk is then > translated into plain English. NOTE: Time > is the land manager’s best estimate of the amount of time a person of > average fitness, walking in good > conditions, will take to complete the walk. Time does not describe > difficulty. Because this is a Grade 3 walk > a high/low estimate is not required > > > Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 > Symbol > Distance Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to > complete walk > is 2.4km. > complete walk. > xx km > complete walk. > xx km > complete walk. > xx km > complete walk. > xx km > Gradient Flat. Gentle hills. Short steep hills. Very steep. Very steep > and difficult. > Quality > of path > Well formed > track. > Formed track. Formed track, > some obstacles. > Rough track, > many obstacles. > Rough unformed > track. > Quality of > markings > Clearly sign > posted. > Clearly sign > posted. > Sign posted. Limited signage. No directional > signage. > Experience > Required > No experience > required. > No experience > required. > Some > bushwalking > experience > recommended. > Experienced > Bushwalkers. > Very experienced > bushwalkers. > Time High and low > estimate of > time needed to > complete track > (eg 1.5-2hrs). > High and low > estimate of > time needed to > complete track > (eg 1.5-2hrs). > Time needed to > complete track > (hours/days) > 1.5hrs. > Time needed to > complete track > (hours/days). > Time needed to > complete track > (hours/days). > Steps No steps. Occasional steps. Many steps. N > > > >> The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates >> independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational >> difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system >> would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically >> calculate an overall grade based on the highest value. >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45, 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@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
Thanks Graeme On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > 2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For > example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop > even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a > route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the > higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter > sections (based on the example)? > Threads have crossed :-(, but as per their instructions that I mentioned in the other post, the track overall is tagged to the highest classification, so per the example they give: Example: Wineglass Bay, Tasmania The technical assessment of the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk is then translated into plain English. NOTE: Time is the land manager’s best estimate of the amount of time a person of average fitness, walking in good conditions, will take to complete the walk. Time does not describe difficulty. Because this is a Grade 3 walk a high/low estimate is not required Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Symbol Distance Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to complete walk is 2.4km. complete walk. xx km complete walk. xx km complete walk. xx km complete walk. xx km Gradient Flat. Gentle hills. Short steep hills. Very steep. Very steep and difficult. Quality of path Well formed track. Formed track. Formed track, some obstacles. Rough track, many obstacles. Rough unformed track. Quality of markings Clearly sign posted. Clearly sign posted. Sign posted. Limited signage. No directional signage. Experience Required No experience required. No experience required. Some bushwalking experience recommended. Experienced Bushwalkers. Very experienced bushwalkers. Time High and low estimate of time needed to complete track (eg 1.5-2hrs). High and low estimate of time needed to complete track (eg 1.5-2hrs). Time needed to complete track (hours/days) 1.5hrs. Time needed to complete track (hours/days). Time needed to complete track (hours/days). Steps No steps. Occasional steps. Many steps. N > The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates > independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational > difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system > would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically > calculate an overall grade based on the highest value. > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45, 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@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
The awtgs= tag looks fine on it's own, a simple wiki page with basic info about the tag would help people know how to use it and less likely someone will misunderstand it like your German friend. 1. Would the tag be reserved for tagging officially assigned AWTGS values? Or when not officially assigned a value left to mappers to decide the grade value? If the latter, how would you separate those officially assigned from those not? Perhaps awtgs:operator= with the organisation who assigned the grade? 2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter sections (based on the example)? The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically calculate an overall grade based on the highest value. On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45, 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@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
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, ianst...@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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 08:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I remember seeing mention in the Tagging list a little while back re a new > way of mapping highways in Japan. > Here it is: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_JapanTagging/RoadTypes/motorroad Yes, it was rejected, but I wonder whether you'd even need to put it out to OSM as a whole, or just keep it to yourself? After all, as people keep saying, you may Use Any Tag You Like. Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 18:24, Phil Wyatt wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I agree that for the average punter/tourist the Australian Walking Track > Classification is the ‘simplest to understand in plain language’. Now can > we benchmark that against the sac_scale? > Do we need to? I remember seeing mention in the Tagging list a little while back re a new way of mapping highways in Japan. Couldn't we just create an Australian Walking Track scheme, adapting the above to OSM & marked for use in Australia only? (but allowing others to adopt it for their own countries eg South Africa would be much more likely to use an Aussie system than SAC!) Would need to be marked that way in Big Red Letters :-), together with a request for overseas mappers to not try & "correct" it based on their local conditions. Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
If we agree that the Australian Walking Track Grading System is worth tagging, the next question is how to tag it? The couple I have tagged, I just did "awtgs=" I heard back from the German guy who deleted my tags (he was apologetic) and he said he thought it was a simple misspelling of a tag because there were only a few in the whole database. His suggestions were: - use "hiking_scale:awtgs" (says there are hundreds of "hiking_scale" tags in the European Alps - get it into the Wiki Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
Hi Graeme, The two systems are not 100% directly relatable because they are designed for very different purposes. One is essentially for promotional purposes and the other has legal ramifications for safety, infrastructure construction. Only two aspects of the standard are benchmarked to the AWTGS. Here is another opinion (and policy) using the various Tasmanian track ‘systems’ (including the Australian and the AS2156) and how they are applied in different ways. https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Walking_Track_Classification_Policy_.pdf The Australian system is used in Tasmania but primarily on ‘tourist tracks brochures’ It may bring up an issue as AS2156 Class 6 tracks (and hence some Class 5 in the AWTGS) in Tasmania are not on printed maps (however they are supplied to emergency services). Most are simply ‘known routes to peak X or Y’ where on the ground definition will be sparse or non existent. Parks Tas also has a class of tracks even lower than AS2156 class 6. I agree that for the average punter/tourist the Australian Walking Track Classification is the ‘simplest to understand in plain language’. Now can we benchmark that against the sac_scale? Cheers - Phil From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 5:30 PM To: Michael Collinson Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths] Just doing some looking & spotted: https://qorf-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/11153757/TrackGradingSystem_UserGuide.pdf which includes Glossary AS 2156.1-2001 Walking Tracks - Classification and Signage The Australian Walking Track Grading System benchmarks to AS 2156.1-2001. A Grade 1 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 1 track A Grade 2 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 2 track A Grade 3 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 3 track A Grade 4 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 4 track A Grade 5 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 5 and 6 track So it appears there may only be 5 levels? Would make sense as Grade 5 refers to multi-day, long-distance, remote-area walks! Another slightly different, & possibly a bit clearer version: https://www.trailhiking.com.au/preparing-to-hike/track-grading/ Thanks Graeme On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:22, Michael Collinson mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz> > 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, ianst...@iinet.net.au <mailto:ianst...@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
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
Just doing some looking & spotted: https://qorf-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/11153757/TrackGradingSystem_UserGuide.pdf which includes Glossary AS 2156.1-2001 Walking Tracks - Classification and Signage The Australian Walking Track Grading System benchmarks to AS 2156.1-2001. A Grade 1 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 1 track A Grade 2 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 2 track A Grade 3 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 3 track A Grade 4 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 4 track *A Grade 5 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 5 and 6 track* So it appears there may only be 5 levels? Would make sense as Grade 5 refers to multi-day, long-distance, remote-area walks! Another slightly different, & possibly a bit clearer version: https://www.trailhiking.com.au/preparing-to-hike/track-grading/ Thanks Graeme On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:22, 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, ianst...@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 > listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
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, ianst...@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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-auBEGIN:VCARD VERSION:4.0 EMAIL;PREF=1:m...@ayeltd.biz EMAIL:mike.collin...@ticketebo.com.au FN:Michael Collinson N:Collinson;Michael;;; TEL;TYPE=work;VALUE=TEXT:+61 491 086 207 TEL;TYPE=cell;VALUE=TEXT:+46 73 581 22 19 X-MOZILLA-HTML;VALUE=BOOLEAN:TRUE UID:fd70790f-e54a-1b4d-a9e3-7ea6b0059431 END:VCARD ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
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/austr alian-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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On 27/1/22 09:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 18:01, Andrew Harvey wrote: 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. How about: waterway=river/stream + crossing = (maybe foot_crossing= ?) 1. paddling 2. knee_deep 3. chest_deep 4. swimming I think they'd be self-explanatory to everybody? Possibly .. but some may prefere an less subjective measure? depth=* default in meters. And for water speed ... speed:water=* Asses by throwing in a stick and seeing how far it travels metres in x seconds -, convert to km/h ? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 18:01, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > 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. > How about: waterway=river/stream + crossing = (maybe foot_crossing= ?) 1. paddling 2. knee_deep 3. chest_deep 4. swimming I think they'd be self-explanatory to everybody? You would probably also then need to add something about likely water speed ie still >>> raging torrent, although that is usually going to be seasonal dependent? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On 26/1/22 19:01, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey 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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey > 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. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey 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? > 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) Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 21:34, Tom Brennan wrote: > > If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so > > keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better > > suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into. > It's probably easier, if less correct, to use an existing tag that has > supporting infrastructure. > > But I will follow with some interest what happens on the US Trail Access > Project - if they decide they need a new trail difficulty measure, I > imagine that would be more relevant to Australia than the Swiss Alpine > Club! > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project > > I haven't thought about an ideal AU track difficulty scale, though I > imagine anything I come up with would have more than 4 grades! > > > In any case, it would seem to be a useful exercise to try and get as > many of the optional tags as possible: > - trail_visibility > - sac_scale > - surface (my default preference is "ground") > - operator (for official/signposted trails) > - informal (for unofficial trails) > attached to bushwalking tracks. It would certainly help distinguish > major tracks from minor tracks and might help a tiny bit in easing land > managers' concerns. > Absolutely, it's easy to look at the map and think it's complete, but delve deeper into the tags and we are missing a lot. Tangentially having some sparse Mapillary coverage for walking tracks would be good too, no need for one every second, but rather capture the track head sign, guideposts, and then a few every so often to capture the rough condition of the track. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into. It's probably easier, if less correct, to use an existing tag that has supporting infrastructure. But I will follow with some interest what happens on the US Trail Access Project - if they decide they need a new trail difficulty measure, I imagine that would be more relevant to Australia than the Swiss Alpine Club! https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project I haven't thought about an ideal AU track difficulty scale, though I imagine anything I come up with would have more than 4 grades! In any case, it would seem to be a useful exercise to try and get as many of the optional tags as possible: - trail_visibility - sac_scale - surface (my default preference is "ground") - operator (for official/signposted trails) - informal (for unofficial trails) attached to bushwalking tracks. It would certainly help distinguish major tracks from minor tracks and might help a tiny bit in easing land managers' concerns. cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 25/01/2022 8:36 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 18:32, Tom Brennan wrote: On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note... Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail difficulty in an Australian context? Personally, I hate the idea, because: - Australia has little in the way of real mountains - the values bear no relevance to Australian conditions - we're tagging for the renderer However, I hate the idea *more* of having no trail difficulty measure, and for better or worse: - this one exists - it's widely used, and rendered Branching out to a new thread, you've summed it up perfectly. If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into. As a rule of thumb, anything that requires using your hands I tag sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, anything that has fall hazards or exposed areas on the trail but don't need hands sac_scale=mountain_hiking, and anything else that you'd generally consider bushwalking (uneven surface) sac_scale=hiking. 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. by usual footwear people would wear: 0. thongs 1. joggers 2. hiking shoes 3. hiking shoes by baby carrier accessibility: 0. okay for baby/child carriers 1. okay for baby/child carriers 2. using a baby/child carrier may not be viable 3. definitely can't use a baby/child carrier sac_scale mixes in navigation skill needed, steepness, fall hazard, trail markings, snow/glaciers, equipment like ice axes, whereas my scheme here is more evaluating mobility. We have tags for rungs, ladders, trail_visibility and route markings (trailblazes) already. 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 18:32, Tom Brennan wrote: > On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note... > > Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail > difficulty in an Australian context? > > Personally, I hate the idea, because: > - Australia has little in the way of real mountains > - the values bear no relevance to Australian conditions > - we're tagging for the renderer > > However, I hate the idea *more* of having no trail difficulty measure, > and for better or worse: > - this one exists > - it's widely used, and rendered > Branching out to a new thread, you've summed it up perfectly. If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into. As a rule of thumb, anything that requires using your hands I tag sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking, anything that has fall hazards or exposed areas on the trail but don't need hands sac_scale=mountain_hiking, and anything else that you'd generally consider bushwalking (uneven surface) sac_scale=hiking. 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. by usual footwear people would wear: 0. thongs 1. joggers 2. hiking shoes 3. hiking shoes by baby carrier accessibility: 0. okay for baby/child carriers 1. okay for baby/child carriers 2. using a baby/child carrier may not be viable 3. definitely can't use a baby/child carrier sac_scale mixes in navigation skill needed, steepness, fall hazard, trail markings, snow/glaciers, equipment like ice axes, whereas my scheme here is more evaluating mobility. We have tags for rungs, ladders, trail_visibility and route markings (trailblazes) already. 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
