Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[stevea]

On Sep 21, 2022, at 10:23 AM, Adam Franco  wrote:
> For anyone who isn't follow all 3 threads, this topic is being discussed in:
> 
> * OSM Community: RFC: Highway=Mountaineering 
> * OSM Community: RfC: Highway=Scramble
> * [Tagging]: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble
> 
> While the thrust of each discussion is similar, there are a few interesting 
> ideas that have popped up in one versus another and slightly different key 
> suggestions have been discussed (`highway=mountaineering`, 
> `highway=scramble`, `highway=demanding_path`, etc).

Thanks for "bridging" here, Adam.  I've been following this fascinating thread 
here (on tagging) and indeed it has a lot going for it:  wide input, 
interesting, "hey, yeah, I didn't think of that aspect..." (which is good!) 
types of new information, obvious deep knowledge of the topic by many who post 
here, and more.

I don't really have a horse in this race, as while I'm an avid hiker, it's 
usually me, my boots and little else — no "technical" hiking of the more 
difficult kind —I have little to offer as new information or suggestions.  But 
as an active mapper, tagger and poster on this list, I offer two thumbs up to 
this excellent thread.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Volker Schmidt]

Preliminary remark: I have walked and hiked, done a couple of via ferrata,
but so far only heard of scrambled eggs.
My only source is the Wikipedia article on "scrambling".

I have detected that in  fact I have done some scrambles. Two of them close
by. I went back to the tagging and they are tagged with sac_scale
=demanding_mountain_hiking
(No ropes or similar are present, so they are bordercase to T3).
Both are a short pieces of a longer hiking trail (route=hiking) that
overall is rated with cai_scale
=EE
The route is the Alta Via dei Colli Euganei
, the to scrambling pieces
are way 136822484  and way
136822487 
Non ci sono ancora foto su Mapillary. Ho messo un esempio su G-drive.

The interesting thing is that cai_scale (Club Alpino Italiano) is applied
to the entire hiking route, i.e. a relation in OSM, whereas the
sac_scale (Swiss
Alpine Club scale) is applied to the singular way.
The concept is that the cai_scale indicates the maximum difficulty of the
entire route.

This model could be adapted to include scrambles.
I think that scrambles could be part of a longer hiking route and can be
way properties. The SAC scale could be used (and is being used) to declare
ways as scrambles. If an entire route is scrambled we could think about
route=scramble, but I fear that many poeple do scrambles without knowing
the term.






On Thu, 15 Sep 2022, 00:30 martianfreeloader, 
wrote:

> 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, but don't want to die.
>
> Imo, scramble would not only include via ferrata. There are many
> paths/scrambles where via ferrata equipment is useless, but where you
> will still very much need your hands and in many cases risk serious
> injury or death if you fall. Yet, these kind of paths/scrambles are
> often not considered "real climbing" in the narrower sense (mountaineers
> would usually still go without rope).
>
> On 15/09/2022 00:03, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I am a hiker, not a climber. I remember lots of sections I would have
> avoided if the map had shown them as scrambles. More adventurous people
> probably would seek them out. I like this proposed highway value. I would
> probably apply it to the actual scramble sections, though, not including
> path sections leading up to the scramble part. Renderers can then show the
> actual scramble sections. For routers, it doesn't really matter, because
> when a section of a path is a scramble and you use say a no scramble
> profile, the route over the path will get high penalty and will not gain
> preference.
> >
> > If a sign says a path will make you scamble somewhere, map the sign and
> the actual scramble(s), that's what I would do.
> >
> > Peter Elderson
> >
> >> Op 14 sep. 2022 om 23:47 heeft martianfreeloader <
> martianfreeloa...@posteo.net> het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> In the real world, you will *always* find borderline cases for *any*
> property.
> >>
> >> I don't think it should be an argument against a good proposal. If it
> were, then it could be used against literally *any* tag on osm. (and
> funnily it reliably does come up with any new proposal)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 14/09/2022 22:59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> >>> The main problem here is that different people will need (or do not
> need) to use hands,
> >>> it also heavily depends on weather and other considtion
> >>> How we would deal with such borderline cases?
> >>> via ferrata value is far more likely to succeed and I would recommend
> trying to get it first
> >>> Sep 14, 2022, 11:42 by hungerb...@gmail.com:
> >>> It is proposed to create the tag highway=scramble as a base tag for
> >>> hiking paths, where use of hands is required, be that for keeping
> >>> balance or be it for pulling up.
> >>> Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page,
> >>>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/highway%3Dscramble
> >>> <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/highway%3Dscramble
> >
> >>> Thank you in advance
> >>> Asa
> >>> ___
> >>> Tagging mailing list
> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> > 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I could have just gone and used it and not made a proposal, but I don't
feel very comfortable making videos about tags that are just "in use"
(mostly by me) and not approved. It's a risky strategy, but I hope it'll
pay off for this one, because there are at least two videos in it. it
also delays the video production by at least four weeks into the rainy
season...

But I would also like to re-tag the ringforts from fortification_type to
settlement_type, because they are not military. That's for the next
proposal, though.

Anne

On 22/09/2022 20:39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 22 Sep 2022, at 18:06, Anne-Karoline Distel 
wrote:

Following that swiftly with a new proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog



at first I thought that’s quite a specific value for such an
apparently generic term like settlement type, but likely it will be
easier to get specific settlement types, e.g. from information boards
on site, as it will be to come to a global level of generalized types.
Many of the specific types are probably occurring only within regions
and smaller areas, and this is part of why it’s interesting, and there
the specific type is what you’d want to know.

I’d support the tag although probably not use this specific value  :)

Cheers Martin

PS: following wikidata I came to a redirect in the 19th century
encyclopedia, a printed redirect, funny how such concepts have been
there already for a long time:
https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/MKL1888:Crannoges


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - settlement_type=crannog

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22 Sep 2022, at 18:06, Anne-Karoline Distel  wrote:
> 
> Following that swiftly with a new proposal:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog


at first I thought that’s quite a specific value for such an apparently generic 
term like settlement type, but likely it will be easier to get specific 
settlement types, e.g. from information boards on site, as it will be to come 
to a global level of generalized types. Many of the specific types are probably 
occurring only within regions and smaller areas, and this is part of why it’s 
interesting, and there the specific type is what you’d want to know.

I’d support the tag although probably not use this specific value  :)

Cheers Martin 

PS: following wikidata I came to a redirect in the 19th century encyclopedia, a 
printed redirect, funny how such concepts have been there already for a long 
time: https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/MKL1888:Crannoges

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Following that swiftly with a new proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog

I still have 23 crannogs mapped as defensive_settlement=crannog; I don't
know if I should wait until after the vote to change them. I've only
changed the two Scottish ones referred to in the Proposal page so far.

Have a good weekend!

Anne


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

[Tagging] RFC - defensive_settlement

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

I wish to withdraw my proposal, because I have come to the conclusion
that I'm over-categorizing and that settlement will have to do with
further settlement_types down the hierarchy which are partly already in use.

I will add the "archived" template which is usually only done after the
vote.

Kind regards,

Anne aka b-unicycling
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging