Re: [Tagging] Proposal of new tag for technicality of trails for running

[Daniel Westergren]

Yeah, the SAC scale (and the CAI scale) are not what I'm looking for here.
As mentioned, those are for alpinism and even climbing the highest mountain
in Sweden would only take me to level 2.

Smoothness is on the other end. According to the example photos most forest
trail would be very bad to impassable, while still not quite reaching
technical trails (and smoothness is more for tracks where four-wheeled
vehicles can pass and not easily translateable so single-trail paths). In a
way, I suppose sac_scale takes over where smoothness ends...

mtb:scale actually does a pretty good job at differentiating
single-trail/single-track in a way that is much more relevant to where I
live (Sweden) and kind of covering the middle ground between smoothness and
sac_scale in more detail. But again, it's for MTB and mappers who are not
cycling MTB are not using that tag.

I agree that we should not make it tougher for either the mapper or data
consumer by adding unnecessary tags. Maybe it's better then with a page
like this, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking, but for
trail running? That is, how to use all the different possible tags that are
relevant for trail running (and to some extent hiking, although not
necessarily the same). And with many more image examples than on the wiki
pages for smoothness, mtb:scale etc.

And from there services and apps using OSM data could weight those
attributes according what they're trying to achieve, like developing a
"trail difficulty score" based on multiple tags, similar to the 10-point
scale mentioned by Kenny.

That is, how can we guide those mapping single-trail paths to add useful
data that data consumers can make good use of for trail runners?

/Daniel


Den mån 18 maj 2020 kl 18:53 skrev Kevin Kenny :

> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:55 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> > There is at least one other scale: cai_scale which is similar in concept
> to sac_scale,but is applied to hiking relations. It's increasingly used in
> Italy.
>
> The problem with both of these is that they're _alpinism_ scales, not
> _hiking_ scales. They basically lump anything that doesn't require the
> equipment and skills for technical climbing into the lowest level or
> two.
>
> Of course, the problem with grading a trail is that once you're
> reasonably skilled and conditioned, they all start to look 'pretty
> easy'. To get a fair assessment, you need to ask a guide, rather than
> a hiker or climber, to get a clear idea of what the guide would expect
> that clients' reactions would be. That's similar to how a ski resort
> would grade green/blue/red/black/double-black (or orange, or
> whatever...). The instructors, not the skiers, do the grading, and
> they compare their ratings with neighbouring resorts.
>
> One scale that's more addressed at hiking has from time to time
> enjoyed some popularity in North America. It's a bit too fine-grained
> and subjective for OSM, but it gives a better range for _hiking_
> difficulty as opposed to _climbing_ difficulty:
>
> 1 = Flat and smooth
> 2 = Flat terrain but uneven treadway, or slight elevation change
> 3 = Moderate elevation change, but well graded trail, or flat trail
> with very rough treadway
> 4 = Strenuous climbs, but of moderate duration, or short but steep climbs
> 5 = Lengthy graded climbs, alternating with easier sections
> 6 = Extended climbs that may last hours or shorter climbs with difficult
> footing
> 7 = Includes rock scrambling that is relatively easy and of short duration
> 8 = Includes rock scrambling that is somewhat challenging
> 9 = Rock scrambling that is difficult and extended
> 10 = Use of hands required for extended periods of climbing, footing
> precarious, and leaping may be required — not recommended for those
> with fear of heights and not in good physical condition. Shorter
> hikers may be at a disadvantage
>
> On the SAC scale, all of these are grade 1 or 2!
>
> (Optional: Corrections for such things as mud, encroaching vegetation,
> tricky stream crossings, or the likelihood of beaver activity. I can
> think of one trail of about 20 km that's all level 2 on the scale
> above - except that halfway through it, there's a 30-m-wide river to
> cross!)
>
> Even with the alpinism scales, we lack a way to recognize that the
> conditions in many places vary seasonally. With one New York trail
> that I have in mind, it's class 3+/4 on the Yosemite scale in the
> summer - not for a beginner, nor for someone with no head for heights,
> but an experienced hiker will have fun.  In winter (and recall that in
> the New York mountains, the four seasons are Winter, June, July and
> August), it's an entirely different beast: a relatively easy but still
> technical ice or mixed-ice climb, probably about a WI2/MI2 depending
> on how much ice there is on a particular day.  When I did it, it was
> with a party of hikers of varying gear and technical skill, and those
> of us who had 12-point crampons and ice axes wound up top-roping those
>

Re: [Tagging] Proposal of new tag for technicality of trails for running

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:55 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> There is at least one other scale: cai_scale which is similar in concept to 
> sac_scale,but is applied to hiking relations. It's increasingly used in Italy.

The problem with both of these is that they're _alpinism_ scales, not
_hiking_ scales. They basically lump anything that doesn't require the
equipment and skills for technical climbing into the lowest level or
two.

Of course, the problem with grading a trail is that once you're
reasonably skilled and conditioned, they all start to look 'pretty
easy'. To get a fair assessment, you need to ask a guide, rather than
a hiker or climber, to get a clear idea of what the guide would expect
that clients' reactions would be. That's similar to how a ski resort
would grade green/blue/red/black/double-black (or orange, or
whatever...). The instructors, not the skiers, do the grading, and
they compare their ratings with neighbouring resorts.

One scale that's more addressed at hiking has from time to time
enjoyed some popularity in North America. It's a bit too fine-grained
and subjective for OSM, but it gives a better range for _hiking_
difficulty as opposed to _climbing_ difficulty:

1 = Flat and smooth
2 = Flat terrain but uneven treadway, or slight elevation change
3 = Moderate elevation change, but well graded trail, or flat trail
with very rough treadway
4 = Strenuous climbs, but of moderate duration, or short but steep climbs
5 = Lengthy graded climbs, alternating with easier sections
6 = Extended climbs that may last hours or shorter climbs with difficult footing
7 = Includes rock scrambling that is relatively easy and of short duration
8 = Includes rock scrambling that is somewhat challenging
9 = Rock scrambling that is difficult and extended
10 = Use of hands required for extended periods of climbing, footing
precarious, and leaping may be required — not recommended for those
with fear of heights and not in good physical condition. Shorter
hikers may be at a disadvantage

On the SAC scale, all of these are grade 1 or 2!

(Optional: Corrections for such things as mud, encroaching vegetation,
tricky stream crossings, or the likelihood of beaver activity. I can
think of one trail of about 20 km that's all level 2 on the scale
above - except that halfway through it, there's a 30-m-wide river to
cross!)

Even with the alpinism scales, we lack a way to recognize that the
conditions in many places vary seasonally. With one New York trail
that I have in mind, it's class 3+/4 on the Yosemite scale in the
summer - not for a beginner, nor for someone with no head for heights,
but an experienced hiker will have fun.  In winter (and recall that in
the New York mountains, the four seasons are Winter, June, July and
August), it's an entirely different beast: a relatively easy but still
technical ice or mixed-ice climb, probably about a WI2/MI2 depending
on how much ice there is on a particular day.  When I did it, it was
with a party of hikers of varying gear and technical skill, and those
of us who had 12-point crampons and ice axes wound up top-roping those
who had just trail crampons and ski poles. (Which worked out - there
were only a couple of technical ice pitches and everyone made it up
safely.)

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:05 AM Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
> Obviously there isn't a concrete proposal with any proposed tags, however 
> this sounds very subjective (if not using existing observable tagging) and I 
> think a runner's skill will determine the technicality a lot more than the 
> trail itself.

Of course, as I observed above - which is what motivated the 'ask a
guide' remark. Don't sneer at less-skilled hikers, runners, or riders;
try to come up with some sort of assessment of the skill level
required.

> If a trail has steep uphill and downhill sections, I'd split that section out 
> and tag it with incline=*.

You can do that - but I don't think I've ever tagged `incline=*`. As
far as I can tell, that's what digital elevation models are for!

In any case, what you propose burdens both the mapper and the data
consumer with needing to deal with extraordinarily fine detail -
mapping every rock pitch and mudhole - together with the data consumer
needing to have a complex model for how this impacts difficulty. In a
sparsely-populated and necessarily sparsely-mapped region, it doesn't
provide a way to begin by "filling in the canvas with broad brush
strokes."  At least the ten-point scale above offers some guidance.

I'm now thinking of a time that my daughter and I met some flatlanders
on a trail, who were complaining that the guidebook said it was
'easy'.  It was, by the scale of the local trails.  If the guidebook
had instead called it a level 5 (about a 5 km graded route with maybe
600 m of ascent), they'd have possibly had a better idea of what they
were getting into. (They'd totally not be ready for the level 9/10
that would be encountered on a lot of the trails in that particular
wilderness area!)

Re: [Tagging] Proposal of new tag for technicality of trails for running

[Jonathon Rossi]

Hi,

Fellow trail runner (& MTB rider) here.

Obviously there isn't a concrete proposal with any proposed tags, however
this sounds very subjective (if not using existing observable tagging) and
I think a runner's skill will determine the technicality a lot more than
the trail itself. For example, I love bombing down steep, loose and rocky
single track whereas others I run with can't do the same.

I think the existing tags cover your examples, I've responded below, you'd
have to provide a photo example of a trail that you don't think you can
adequately map using existing tags for anyone to provide more detail.

> Some factors to determine values: stability/softness of surface
Does surface=* not already provide enough here? dirt, gravel, etc? Maybe we
need another value for something you don't think fits?

> obstacles (rocks, roots etc.)
smoothness=* would be the best tag here, it describes something verifiable
and for all trail users.

> running rhythm (short ups/downs, sharp turns etc.) and attention required.
Short sections and sharp turns are defined by the trail geometry already.
If a trail has steep uphill and downhill sections, I'd split that section
out and tag it with incline=*. The trail router could roughly calculate
elevation gain with an average incline for a segment.

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:47 AM Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I would like to discuss the possibility of a new tag, trail_technicality,
> to be used on ways with highway=path.
>
> One way this can be used is aid in finding trails to run on and to get
> suggested routes with tools like Trail Router (www.trailrouter.com),
> Komoot (www.komoot.com) or Open Route Service (
> https://maps.openrouteservice.org/).
>
> *What tags are already available?*
> *sac_scale *is the obvious choice to determine trail difficulty. But it's
> geared towards mountain trails and I doubt it's being used much outside of
> mountain trails.
>
> *mtb:scale* is closer to what I'm proposing, but geared towards
> single-trail technicality for MTB, not for running (or hiking).
>
> Then there's *surface*, *width*, *trail_visibility*, *smoothness *(for
> wheeled vehicles) that can all be used to determine what kind of path it
> is, but they don't really tell anything about the technicality of
> single-trails.
>
> *How to use the tag?*
> It would only be used for single-trails, that is in ways with
> highway=path. I don't have a set suggestion of values, but I'm thinking
> something similar to mtb:scale, basically with runnability as the
> determining factor. It would obviously leave room for subjective judgement,
> just like smoothness and trail_visibility. But with image examples and
> clear factors describing each value it would still give a lot of useful
> information to route planners and renderers.
>
> Some factors to determine values: stability/softness of surface, obstacles
> (rocks, roots etc.), running rhythm (short ups/downs, sharp turns etc.) and
> attention required.
>
> *Use-cases*
> As mentioned, trail_technicality could be used together with other values
> in route planners and renderers, to suggest routes based on user preference
> (technical trails <-> road running), but also to roughly estimate running
> time (in addition to elevation/slopes).
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> /Daniel Westergren
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Jono
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal of new tag for technicality of trails for running

[Volker Schmidt]

There is at least one other scale: cai_scale
 which is
similar in concept to sac_scale,but is applied to hiking relations. It's
increasingly used in Italy.

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:48, Daniel Westergren  wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I would like to discuss the possibility of a new tag, trail_technicality,
> to be used on ways with highway=path.
>
> One way this can be used is aid in finding trails to run on and to get
> suggested routes with tools like Trail Router (www.trailrouter.com),
> Komoot (www.komoot.com) or Open Route Service (
> https://maps.openrouteservice.org/).
>
> *What tags are already available?*
> *sac_scale *is the obvious choice to determine trail difficulty. But it's
> geared towards mountain trails and I doubt it's being used much outside of
> mountain trails.
>
> *mtb:scale* is closer to what I'm proposing, but geared towards
> single-trail technicality for MTB, not for running (or hiking).
>
> Then there's *surface*, *width*, *trail_visibility*, *smoothness *(for
> wheeled vehicles) that can all be used to determine what kind of path it
> is, but they don't really tell anything about the technicality of
> single-trails.
>
> *How to use the tag?*
> It would only be used for single-trails, that is in ways with
> highway=path. I don't have a set suggestion of values, but I'm thinking
> something similar to mtb:scale, basically with runnability as the
> determining factor. It would obviously leave room for subjective judgement,
> just like smoothness and trail_visibility. But with image examples and
> clear factors describing each value it would still give a lot of useful
> information to route planners and renderers.
>
> Some factors to determine values: stability/softness of surface, obstacles
> (rocks, roots etc.), running rhythm (short ups/downs, sharp turns etc.) and
> attention required.
>
> *Use-cases*
> As mentioned, trail_technicality could be used together with other values
> in route planners and renderers, to suggest routes based on user preference
> (technical trails <-> road running), but also to roughly estimate running
> time (in addition to elevation/slopes).
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> /Daniel Westergren
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Proposal of new tag for technicality of trails for running

[Daniel Westergren]

Hi there,

I would like to discuss the possibility of a new tag, trail_technicality,
to be used on ways with highway=path.

One way this can be used is aid in finding trails to run on and to get
suggested routes with tools like Trail Router (www.trailrouter.com), Komoot
(www.komoot.com) or Open Route Service (https://maps.openrouteservice.org/).

*What tags are already available?*
*sac_scale *is the obvious choice to determine trail difficulty. But it's
geared towards mountain trails and I doubt it's being used much outside of
mountain trails.

*mtb:scale* is closer to what I'm proposing, but geared towards
single-trail technicality for MTB, not for running (or hiking).

Then there's *surface*, *width*, *trail_visibility*, *smoothness *(for
wheeled vehicles) that can all be used to determine what kind of path it
is, but they don't really tell anything about the technicality of
single-trails.

*How to use the tag?*
It would only be used for single-trails, that is in ways with highway=path.
I don't have a set suggestion of values, but I'm thinking something similar
to mtb:scale, basically with runnability as the determining factor. It
would obviously leave room for subjective judgement, just like smoothness
and trail_visibility. But with image examples and clear factors describing
each value it would still give a lot of useful information to route
planners and renderers.

Some factors to determine values: stability/softness of surface, obstacles
(rocks, roots etc.), running rhythm (short ups/downs, sharp turns etc.) and
attention required.

*Use-cases*
As mentioned, trail_technicality could be used together with other values
in route planners and renderers, to suggest routes based on user preference
(technical trails <-> road running), but also to roughly estimate running
time (in addition to elevation/slopes).


What do you think?

/Daniel Westergren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging