Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble
Dear Peter and all others, Peter wrote Thu Sep 15 2022 23:37:04 GMT+0200 Wouldn't scramble=yes with highway=path do the trick? Hurts nobody, and carries the exact information you want. IMHO as clear as friendly "no" 🙂 In current state, scramble has not an sufficiently clear definition to fulfill "carries the exact information"; more work on the definition when hands are [not] "required" is required. But do we want to discuss until we have a clear definition? Is it worth the effort? I think we shall reflect that SAC did clearly define T1+2 must not and T4+T5+T6 must contain use of hands – but they left T3 open: "You may need your hands for balance". IMHO, that vague wording with "may" is not a drawback of the definition, but a strength. If we introduced highway=scramble with current definition as "tag for hiking paths, where use of hands is required", to tag correctly as highway=path/scramble, mappers need to decide whether hands are required. But that is highly individual, depending on body shape, fitness, intensity of sense for balance, fear level, how slippery shoes are on the ground in which weather condition. To illustrate how difficult telling apart "hands required or not" is, two edge cases: 1) A hike traverses a steep muddy hillside that is fine when dry but extremely slippery when wet – so the very same person uses hands to balance or not, it only depends on the weather (experienced in geothermal area). What is then the property of the way? In doubt the more difficult one? Or depending on how often that way is dry versus wet? If so, the whole year or only during hiking season? etc. 2) A four year old kid (like mentioned by Marc_marc) will need the hands even for little steps of 20cm, while Ueli Steck is scrambling in terrain many people would consider requiring climbing gear, see e.g. at 2:28 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfpYNr7es0Y So the range of scrambling is extremely wide. Where in that range shall a mapper start? Maybe we could re-use from Peter's question _"a grown-up, non-challenged, average hiker without climbing skills and without special gear other then a cane, hiking shoes and gloves"_ While that will rule out both extremes I sketched, what is an average hiker? In the alpine club of my home town in Germany, most people in the hiking groups are seniors, so the "average hiker" may be over 65 years. In northern Germany, paths are built very solid, have relatively smooth surface and the highest hills are below 200m. So I guess a lot of them will use hands already for slightly steeper stairs like in Angkor Wat https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1344437/thumbs/o-ANGKOR-WAT-STAIRS-570.jpg?1 But the average hiker from Cusco in Peru will be much younger and will be hiking between 2000m and 5500m altitude in steep terrain on quite uneven paths that have been created with minimal building effort. They IIRC do Huayna Picchu path & staircase completely without scrambling despite it's really really steep and also hundreds of meters high (very left side in https://www.hikr.org/gallery/photo228207.html?post_id=20026) – I do not assume our average 65+ year old hiker from the flat would go there without hands, and be it only because of vertico which usually increases with age. To illustrate how little clear current definition is to me, both by the description and provided photos: I am hiking in SAC T3 or above (so where scrambling may exist) maybe 3-8 days a year since 3 decades, so I know it but I am not at all trained & routined. The photo embedded in the page makes the impression it's SAC3 hiking, the ground of the 5 people on upper part is invisible, the lady at right has steps like in a staircase – so from the picture, I strongly guess I would walk upright, and most routined trail runners would probably even run it. All photos of linked "Snowdon" webpage show people walking upright and create the impression of a pretty usual hiking tour though rocky & ridge terrain, so this example does not at all make clear that people are _required_ to use the hands. The middle photos for "Hirschlucke" shows a fix rope in a nearly vertical wall of at least 20m heigth, that looks like typical easy climbing technique is required and force on holds is obviously needed (so UIAA grade III), but as current definition tells "A scramble ends where climbing starts", the way must be tagged as climbing but not highway=scrambling. scramble=grade has no description and the values do reveal only exactly one grade – so why add a grade at all if it's always the same? 🤔 Conclusion from my point of view: All hiking trails of difficulty SAC T1+2 are clearly not scramble and all T4+5+6 are clearly scramble, so highway=scramble could only add more information to SAC T3 hikes which are not clarified by the existing tagging like smoothness=very_horrible mentioned in my other email and in wiki page. Moreover, I doubt we will come up with a definition that is resulting in mostly consistent tagging path/scramble. Both tog
Re: [Tagging] Concrete vs concrete:plates should we simplify?
On 2022-09-16 19:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: What's the goal of differentiating concrete vs concrete:plates anyway? To detect/mark places where you will be very likely hit with "thump thump" when driving on them. Obnoxious especially to cyclist. smoothness can sort of tag this, but it is kind of special problem. This distinction does not work globally. In large parts of the world regular concrete roads (continuously-poured steel-reinforced) have the "thump thump" experience too due to transverse contraction joints that are being cut into the concrete after curing. The wiki recommends to tag such new concrete roads as smoothness=excellent, but with above-mentioned construction method it seems preferable to map them as smoothness=good to account for the significantly less smooth surface compared to new asphalt.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble
Dear Peter and all others, I gained the impression you do not find consent just because you are using different definitions for the same thing: SAC T4-T6. 🙈 Peter wrote Thu Sep 15 2022 17:30:25 GMT+0200 Peter Which combination(s) of highway values, sac scale values and hazard values would exclusively represent a scramble Janko Any of the three combinations: highway=path + sac_scale=alpine_hiking highway=path + sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking highway=path + sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking Peter So, a selection of sac_scale values may or may not include scramble sections, beside other posible obstacles/hazards/challenges. If you specifically want to know where the scramble sections are, the sac_scale doesn't tell you, correct? Yes and no 🤪 Janko's and Yves' answer that T4-T6 _require_ hands is correct when using the _German_ definition https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:sac_scale In contrast, the _English_ definition https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale did tell until now that hands are optional for T4+T5 and only mandatory for T6 – so it supported Peter's view – which was not consistent with the original definition of SAC telling "you’ll need to use your hands" already for T4, see https://www.sac-cas.ch/fileadmin/Ausbildung_und_Wissen/Sicher_unterwegs/Sicher_unterwegs_Wandern/2020_Berg_Alpinwanderskala_EN.pdf I just updated the EN wiki page to match with SAC's definition. To extend the answer on Peters original question: Based on SAC's definition, each path of grade SAC T4 and above is a scramble, because definition of T4-T6 is that at some point, one needs the hands to go further. Climbing, by all definitions I saw, needs hands. https://theuiaa.org/mountaineering/uiaa-grades-for-rock-climbing/ even mentions the word "scramble". So if someone does not want to use hands, exclude any object tagged as sport=climbing – and please note that UIAA grade I and II is not only suitable for cliffs but also a hiking path of SAC T5 or T6, so it is relevant on Peter's question. For https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard it's a little less clear, as there are not yet many agreed values for the kind of physical objects we are talking about. Probably relevant values found via taginfo are hazard=falling and =steep and =slip_danger and =steep_slope. Considering what surprisingly high steps specialized off-road vehicles can manage, the two worst values of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness will likely require pedestrians to use hands. Yves did trow in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility at Thu Sep 15 2022 17:06:25 GMT+0200. I am not creative enough to deduct from visibility whether hands need to be used, but I still list it as others might have an idea 🙂 While above keys/values enforce use of hands and thus answer your question, these are not best to satisfy your expressed interest: To avoid scramble sections. Why not? 1) Some ways might simply not yet carry above mentioned tagging but wait for someone adding it. 2) There may exist some more keys/values not yet mentioned here. To more reliably avoid scrambles, you need to approach from the other side: Choose ways tagged as SAC T2 and T1 because they must not be a scramble, by their definition, and the relevant information is certainly existing in OSM DB. Only remaining bigger risk is that map and territory are not matching. Best regards, Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble
Dear Asa and others, Asa wrote Thu Sep 15 2022 23:38:40 GMT+0200 Imo, scramble would not only include via ferrata. Unlike what I wrote yesterday, there is indeed some overlap of scramble and via ferrata. There are via ferratas, that can be hiked/scrambled without gear: from what I see, highway=scramble would just "take over" a part of the existing overlap between highway=path and highway=via_ferrata but does not introduce new overlaps. Do you see new ones? In fact, there's a big number of ways where I find it difficult to tell apart between "very easy via ferrata" and "alpine hike with many safety measures" like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:safety_rope and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:rungs Greetings, Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble
Dear martianfreeloader, you wrote Thu Sep 15 2022 00:27:11 GMT+0200 I am a hiker and a climber, but I made experiences similar to Peter's on more than one occasion. I have been led along ways by osmand which were mapped as highway=path; obviously by other climbers. They were definitely not suitable for folks without climbing experience that want to go on a physically demanding hike Yet, these kind of paths/scrambles are often not considered "real climbing" in the narrower sense (mountaineers would usually still go without rope). from your description, I've the impression you're less seeking information specifically about scrambling (using hands) but more how demanding and dangerous a way is. Both is reflected by SAC hiking grade; T5 and T6 seem matching very well the ways you describe – too easy to be listed anywhere as a climbing route, so listed as hiking path while bearing too high falling risk for quite a share of hikers. In case my impression is correct, do you remember any of these ways and could check a hand full whether they are carrying SAC T grade? Then, this tag "just" needs to be considered by data consumers, i.e. humans shall set desired maximum hike difficulty and routers shall not suggest any paths that are more difficult. That works very reliable in BRouter, but I did not try OsmAnd much for that purpose. In case my impression is not correct, could you please tell with other words how your experiences link to highway=scrambling? Best regards, Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Concrete vs concrete:plates should we simplify?
> should be deprecated If I would design it from scratch it would be likely a separate tag or there would be surface=concrete concrete=transverse_joints concrete=plates and so on But it may be too late for that. > Personally, I'm 90% sure concrete:plates is being used wrong and should be > deprecated. > Are you sure? Given for example https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/85524/concrete-vs-concreteplates/85525 90% claims seems highly dubious. Can you give specific photo examples of places where concrete:plates is used incorrectly in your opinion? Or likely to be used incorrectly You linked for example https://roadsandbridges.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Photo%201%20-%20Precast%20deck%20panels%20in%20place.JPG in OSM Help site, but that is a construction element which will be likely covered by asphalt. > What's the goal of differentiating concrete vs concrete:plates anyway? > To detect/mark places where you will be very likely hit with "thump thump" when driving on them. Obnoxious especially to cyclist. smoothness can sort of tag this, but it is kind of special problem. > Personally, I'm 90% sure concrete:plates is being used wrong > In which way it is wrong? Do you think that vast majority is used where there are no plates? > Another way this camp has described `concrete:plates` is "clearly see the > plates and the regular gaps". I believe this leads one to believe, > incorrectly, that a transverse joint in a road makes the concrete:panel. > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=surface%3Dconcrete%3Apanel - this seems unused If you meant concrete:plates - on which you base that it is a widespread misconception? > Those that read the wiki which describes that plates are "Heavy-duty plates > chained closely together" that should be "pre-fabricated", with > concrete:plates only being used when "you know how the concrete is laid out". > That is to say that concrete:plate is in reference to "Precast Concrete Deck > Panels" which is a more search-friendly term. This camp does not believe a > "concrete:panel" is concrete poured on site with a transverse joint. > >From looking at https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Precast+Concrete+Deck+Panels&iax=images&ia=images it seems that "Precast Concrete Deck Panels" is a structural element of bridge - not surface exposed to cars. So it is not really relevant (unless I am wrong?) > Note _most_ concrete roads built professionally are going to be built with > "transverse joints" the question here is whether or not concrete with > "transverse joints" "concrete:plate". I'm going to suppose the answer is no. > I also think so. > If it's not, and we can't really differentiate between a "pre-fabricated > plate" and a concrete poured on site with a transverse joint > In many cases you can be sure that it is concrete:plates due to significant gaps, plate handling elements being exposed. And most commonly: each plate being level on its piece but not matching other plates. > > , it seems the best course action is to simplify and deprecate > concrete:plate, offering just "concrete". Note if you want to see even bigger > joints that can be poured into concrete and result in mistagging, check out > an "expansion joint" on google. > I do not see any dubious images. > > I'm not an expert on concrete. But I don't think the wiki on concrete:plates > is useful > That can be a reason to improve wiki page rather than deprecate widely used and useful tag. This topic is inspired by > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/85524/concrete-vs-concrete-plates > https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4344 > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble
Am Fr., 16. Sept. 2022 um 00:24 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny : > > yeah, looks like a YDS class 2, or `sac_scale=hiking`. Maybe > `mountain_hiking` if that talus is unstable, because then you start to need > some technique. I know some runners who would do that barefoot, but I think > they're nuts. >From the looks of it, the person on the photo is heading straight up. No trail is visible, that she might be following along, just bare scree. Hands not needed here. Mappers that read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale will most certainly set "demanding_mountain_hiking", alone from the similarity of the scene and the sample illustration there. Only the Wiki pictures for the *alpine*hiking grades show scrambling. If sac_scale gets applied so wrong, does that mean, it is too complicated? > Do we need `sac_scale=no` for `paved path in a city park`? No, we need a base, that allows to shrink the "path" space, so reasonable expectations can be held, without reading small-print. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
