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


Nope, didn't forget about that.

My point was rather that in case the community decides the discussed 
primary-tag distinction is favourable, it would be the least effort for 
us is to keep highway=path for the vast majority of ways (12 million) 
instead of changing them all to highway=easy_path (I don't see any 
chance this big of a change will find acceptance).


But yes, you're totally right, it will still be a considerable task to 
re-tag all the 2k via ferratas, 3k climbing routes and ~20k difficult hikes.


Luckily this not quite hundreds of thousands as you feared, but "just" 
tens of thousands... :-)




On 20/09/2022 20:23, Yves wrote:



Le 20 septembre 2022 19:04:59 GMT+02:00, martianfreeloader 
 a écrit :


How about this:

- keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people (this 
means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)
- introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.


  I think you forgot to mention we would need to re-tag the hundred of thousand 
ways falling into your second bullet. That's normal, we tend to forget how 
easily we manage competing tagging schemes ;-)


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

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

2022-09-20 Thread Yves via Tagging



Le 20 septembre 2022 19:04:59 GMT+02:00, martianfreeloader 
 a écrit :
>
>How about this:
>
>- keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people (this 
>means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)
>- introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.
>
 I think you forgot to mention we would need to re-tag the hundred of thousand 
ways falling into your second bullet. That's normal, we tend to forget how 
easily we manage competing tagging schemes ;-) 

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

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


Hi Georg,

I mostly agree, except in one point: I totally did have steep 
mountainous paths in mind in the definition of highway=path, as long as 
regular people can walk them.


I think your highway=demanding_path tag instead of highway=scramble is a 
great idea!


How about this:

- keep highway=path for everything that can be walked by normal people 
(this means we don't need to re-tag millions of ways)

- introduce a new tag highway=demanding path for everything else.

Then, the secondary tags would be
demanding_path=via_ferrata
demanding_path=climbing
demanding_path=alpine_hiking
optionally demanding_path=scramble if the community decides this is a thing

Alternatively, if we don't want the secondary tag to be orthogonal, as 
you desired, we could instead use:

via_ferrata=yes/no
climbing=yes/no
alpine_hiking=yes/no
(scramble=yes/no)

Best,
m


On 20/09/2022 17:00, Georg wrote:

Dear all,

martianfreeloader, wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 10:52:06 GMT+0200


I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should
be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to
look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags. > ...
I think a new generic highway= is a very good idea.  > 
It would encompass any way which requires at least one of these:

- special skill
- extraordinary courage
- special equipment.


I agree to your underlying motivation  To understand what exactly
people would expect from highway=path, I looked up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path and interestingly, *wikipedia has no
definition for "path" but only for less generic terms,* so bridle path,
foodpath, sidewalk, trail, or desire path (which seems to include
typical mountain hiking paths).

*Maybe we as OSM community shall never have introduced the generic
highway=path but only more specialized ones. Maybe we shall correct that
and deprecate highway=path.* Why? Because in different areas, an "usual
path" in local understanding will have quite different characteristics.

In flat areas like northern Germany, a path is usually not at all
demanding. Many can even be driven with stroller or city bike – mostly
limited by how soft the ground is and the width between vegetation.

In mountain regions like Alps, Atlas or Andes, connections between two
points are sometimes in flat areas like valley or tableland, so ways
with same characteristics as above, but sometimes paths hit hurdles
caused by the terrain, like crossing a field of big rock blocks, high
steps, a steep grass area, etc. Many of such paths are often not created
for tourists, but are traditional connections. They were managed over
hundreds of years by average people with no extraordinary equipment or
skills, they can be used by young kids and elderly locals – even if
containing scrambling sections.

So, such a mountain path obviously matches your definition, i.e. your
definition is probably including "too many" paths for the purpose you
had in mind  Such mountain paths also perfectly match
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path as well as
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampelpfad which tell both _"small trail
created ... by human or animal traffic. The path usually represents the
shortest or the most easily navigated route between an origin and
destination"_ and the DE page makes it even more clear (translation by
me) _"paths represent the shortest route, even if one can proceed only
slowly"._ Both do not require you can walk upright without ever using
hands or without facing the risk of falling down a deep cliff.




Back to your underlying motivation and suggestion.

martianfreeloader wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 13:42:47 GMT+0200

Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag:

`highway=scramble`

with secondary tags like

`scramble=via_ferrata`
`scramble=climbing`
`scramble=alpine_hiking`


*I strongly suggest to use use a more generic term than scramble.* Why?
As I learned in the discussion, "scramble" has a quite well defined
meaning in some parts of the world, so it creates assumptions that will
neither be met for a narrow but horizontal tunnel nor for a climbing
UIAA grade VI – so we'd end up exactly with the same situation as we now
have and as described in the first sentence of this mail  Maybe the
more generic term could just be "path" combined with certain "qualities"
like e.g. highway=easy_path and highway=demanding_path? I don't mind
whether highway=demanding_path also contains paths with considerable
incline, which is told in secondary tag, or we'd have a third
alternative highway=mountaineering (or other term).


I like the approach to split current highway=path into two different
values that are thought from view of map & data consumers. I also assume
many data & map consumers would appreciate if the primary tag alone made
it easy to distinguish between easy paths "everyone" can go without
further research and one "more demanding" path type where you better
look at the additional tags before deciding whether you want to walk
that path in your

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

2022-09-20 Thread Georg


Dear all,

Peter wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 14:02:24 GMT+0200


This would mean that there is a new primary tag `highway=scramble` which makes 
some currently existing primary tags obsolete:
1) `highway=via_ferrata` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + 
scramble=via_ferrata`
2) `climbing=route` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=climbing`



1. From previous discussion I got the impression that actual climbing and via 
ferrata are different from scrambling, i.e. not a type of scramble.


I fully agree that climbing and via ferrata are no subset of scrambling
because more difficult climbs/ferratas are going way beyond what a
scramble is. But to my understanding, there is definitely a fuzzy
overlapping zone in the sense simple climbs and via ferrata are at the
same time scrambles. To me, definitions of UIAA climbing grade I are
mostly equal to the posted definitions of scrambling grade 1, similar
overlaps in higher grades until around UIAA IV. Same for the easiest 1-2
grades of via ferrata (see e.g.
https://www.bergfreunde.eu/via-ferrata-grades-calculator/). This is not
only in definitions but also in real life, e.g. in the Alps, simple via
ferrata are done by many as scramble, i.e. they simply do not use the
metal but the rock unless conditions are harsh.

Best regards,
Georg

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

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

2022-09-20 Thread Georg


Dear all,

martianfreeloader, wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 10:52:06 GMT+0200


I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should
be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to
look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags. > ...
I think a new generic highway= is a very good idea.  > It would 
encompass any way which requires at least one of these:
- special skill
- extraordinary courage
- special equipment.


I agree to your underlying motivation  To understand what exactly
people would expect from highway=path, I looked up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path and interestingly, *wikipedia has no
definition for "path" but only for less generic terms,* so bridle path,
foodpath, sidewalk, trail, or desire path (which seems to include
typical mountain hiking paths).

*Maybe we as OSM community shall never have introduced the generic
highway=path but only more specialized ones. Maybe we shall correct that
and deprecate highway=path.* Why? Because in different areas, an "usual
path" in local understanding will have quite different characteristics.

In flat areas like northern Germany, a path is usually not at all
demanding. Many can even be driven with stroller or city bike – mostly
limited by how soft the ground is and the width between vegetation.

In mountain regions like Alps, Atlas or Andes, connections between two
points are sometimes in flat areas like valley or tableland, so ways
with same characteristics as above, but sometimes paths hit hurdles
caused by the terrain, like crossing a field of big rock blocks, high
steps, a steep grass area, etc. Many of such paths are often not created
for tourists, but are traditional connections. They were managed over
hundreds of years by average people with no extraordinary equipment or
skills, they can be used by young kids and elderly locals – even if
containing scrambling sections.

So, such a mountain path obviously matches your definition, i.e. your
definition is probably including "too many" paths for the purpose you
had in mind  Such mountain paths also perfectly match
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path as well as
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampelpfad which tell both _"small trail
created ... by human or animal traffic. The path usually represents the
shortest or the most easily navigated route between an origin and
destination"_ and the DE page makes it even more clear (translation by
me) _"paths represent the shortest route, even if one can proceed only
slowly"._ Both do not require you can walk upright without ever using
hands or without facing the risk of falling down a deep cliff.




Back to your underlying motivation and suggestion.

martianfreeloader wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 13:42:47 GMT+0200

Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag:

`highway=scramble`

with secondary tags like

`scramble=via_ferrata`
`scramble=climbing`
`scramble=alpine_hiking`


*I strongly suggest to use use a more generic term than scramble.* Why?
As I learned in the discussion, "scramble" has a quite well defined
meaning in some parts of the world, so it creates assumptions that will
neither be met for a narrow but horizontal tunnel nor for a climbing
UIAA grade VI – so we'd end up exactly with the same situation as we now
have and as described in the first sentence of this mail  Maybe the
more generic term could just be "path" combined with certain "qualities"
like e.g. highway=easy_path and highway=demanding_path? I don't mind
whether highway=demanding_path also contains paths with considerable
incline, which is told in secondary tag, or we'd have a third
alternative highway=mountaineering (or other term).


I like the approach to split current highway=path into two different
values that are thought from view of map & data consumers. I also assume
many data & map consumers would appreciate if the primary tag alone made
it easy to distinguish between easy paths "everyone" can go without
further research and one "more demanding" path type where you better
look at the additional tags before deciding whether you want to walk
that path in your individual situation.

*Of course, we'd need a definition allowing to tell apart the easy from
the demanding path type. Here's a first suggestion.* It includes
feasibility with a stroller or city bike – well knowing both are
vehicles while we are [also] talking about ways for [purely] pedestrian
use – because their usage limit is hopefully much less individual than
"easy to walk" or "requiring use of hands".

Easy path: A path that
* matches current definition of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath (mainly: a
highway not fitting to another value like track, footway or bridleway
and open to non-motorized vehicles)
* poses no considerable risks, so e.g. no hazards like quicksand and not
directly next to a deep cliff without railing
* can be walked upright without use of hands for balance or propelling
by the vast majority of humans that are able to walk and have

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

2022-09-20 Thread Peter Elderson




Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 20 sep. 2022 om 13:49 heeft martianfreeloader 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> This would mean that there is a new primary tag `highway=scramble` which 
> makes some currently existing primary tags obsolete:
> 1) `highway=via_ferrata` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + 
> scramble=via_ferrata`
> 2) `climbing=route` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=climbing`
> 3) Paths on the difficult end of `highway=path + sac_scale=*` get replaced by 
> `highway=scramble + scramble=alpine_hiking + sac_scale=*` (exact difficulty 
> threshold to be discussed, see below).

1. From previous discussion I got the impression that actual climbing and via 
ferrata are different from scrambling, i.e. not a type of scramble. 
2. sac_scale grading indicates the experience level and equipment needed. It 
seems odd to cut out some grades and tag them differently.


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

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


Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag:

`highway=scramble`

with secondary tags like

`scramble=via_ferrata`
`scramble=climbing`
`scramble=alpine_hiking`
etc.

Tertiary tags would be:
`via_ferrate_scale=*`
`climbing:grade:uiaa=*`
`sac_scale=*`

The secondary tags would be orthogonal. In case of conflict, the most 
common use of the scramble should be tagged. The tertiary tags can be 
used side by side if applicable.


-
*Implications for data consumers*

`highway=scramble` for data consumers basically means:

1a) Don't render this as normal paths.
1b) If you do render it, render it differently.
2a) Don't route pedestrians along here.
2b) If you do want to route specialists here, then have a look at the 
secondary (and tertiary) tags.



-
*Obsolescence of other tags*

This would mean that there is a new primary tag `highway=scramble` which 
makes some currently existing primary tags obsolete:
1) `highway=via_ferrata` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + 
scramble=via_ferrata`

2) `climbing=route` gets replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=climbing`
3) Paths on the difficult end of `highway=path + sac_scale=*` get 
replaced by `highway=scramble + scramble=alpine_hiking + sac_scale=*` 
(exact difficulty threshold to be discussed, see below).



-
*Detailed definition(s)*

This is just a coarse sketch.

If it gets any support, then yes, the details would certainly need to be 
thought through and discussed:
- What's the exact scope of highway=scramble? Does it include caves or 
tunnels where you have to crawl? (I'm sure there are many other examples 
that haven't been mentioned yet)

- What are the exact thresholds between path and scramble?
- What counts as special equipment?
- etc.

I suggest we first decide whether we find the general concept of 
highway=scramble to be useful and want to introduce it at all. In case 
we answer this positively, then focus on working out the exact details 
like what's the exact sac scale threshold, etc.



Cheers,
martianfreeloader


On 20/09/2022 12:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 20 Sep 2022, at 10:56, martianfreeloader  
wrote:

This would encompass
- via ferratas
- demanding or dangerous hikes
- climbing routes
- anything else?

To me, highway=scramble seems a good solution for this, but I'm not a native 
English speaker, so there may be better terms that I'm not a aware of.




just to get it right, you are suggesting to deprecate highway=via_ferrata in 
favor of highway=scramble?

AFAIK climbing routes aren’t currently tagged as highways, why would we want to 
have them in the same category as hiking paths?

Is a torch qualifying for special equipment? E.g. paths in caves that aren’t 
lit?

What kind of shoes would you consider special equipment?

Is special equipment and extraordinary courage a requirement that is relative 
to local habits or is it to be seen on a global level?

Cheers Martin



___
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 - highway=scramble

2022-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 20 Sep 2022, at 10:56, martianfreeloader  
> wrote:
> 
> This would encompass
> - via ferratas
> - demanding or dangerous hikes
> - climbing routes
> - anything else?
> 
> To me, highway=scramble seems a good solution for this, but I'm not a native 
> English speaker, so there may be better terms that I'm not a aware of.

just to get it right, you are suggesting to deprecate highway=via_ferrata in 
favor of highway=scramble?

AFAIK climbing routes aren’t currently tagged as highways, why would we want to 
have them in the same category as hiking paths?

Is a torch qualifying for special equipment? E.g. paths in caves that aren’t 
lit?

What kind of shoes would you consider special equipment?

Is special equipment and extraordinary courage a requirement that is relative 
to local habits or is it to be seen on a global level?

Cheers Martin 

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

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

I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should 
be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to 
look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags.


Data consumers, like all of us, have limited capacity. We make their 
lives much easier if primary tags (like highway=path) mean something 
(one can walk here) and secondary tags are there to explain the details, 
not to say "this primary tag doesn't mean what you think it means".


I'm a mapper, not a data consumer, but I think we should try to be as 
nice as possible to those who make use of our mapping work. I found this 
talk very instructive, especially around minutes 30-42: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=660lvPS06SI


I think a new generic highway= is a very good idea. It 
would encompass any way which requires at least one of these:

- special skill
- extraordinary courage
- special equipment.

This would encompass
- via ferratas
- demanding or dangerous hikes
- climbing routes
- anything else?

To me, highway=scramble seems a good solution for this, but I'm not a 
native English speaker, so there may be better terms that I'm not a 
aware of.





On 17/09/2022 01:35, Georg wrote:


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


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

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

2022-09-18 Thread Georg

Dear all,

Asa wrote Sat Sep 17 2022 14:11:45 GMT+0200

In one of the Snowdon photos, a woman is using hands for balance.

I just observed that for Snowdon, the link
https://www.walkupsnowdon.co.uk/snowdonia-walks/crib-goch/ was replaced
by
https://www.walkupsnowdon.co.uk/snowdonia-walks/scramble-up-y-gribin-ridge-and-y-lliwedd/
containing photos actually showing some hand use. My last post was based
on the first link only, this post on both.

Without knowing that trail, so from the photos alone, hands seem really
_required_ only at 2-3 single points. Just because of these few points
tagging a whole long, well walkable way (look at pic #7 or #9) as
scramble feels plain wrong to me. Like tagging a whole long trail as
ladder just because there are 4-5 rungs installed. For me, it would feel
much more appropriate to have a highway=path containing single points
tagged as barrier=step/block/debris/... where a step is so high you need
a hand for balance or pull up. Or tagging the node as scramble=yes, see
below.

Is there really no more clear example for a whole way requiring to
scramble? Some trail where everybody clearly sees at first glance it's
going to be really difficult to do without hands? I mean pictures like
https://cdn-images-2.click-mallorca.com/imagenes/excursiones/entreforc-torrent-pareis-21153-o.jpg
just for something that does match the current definition of
highway=scramble – which Torrent de Pareis does just not (despite
perfectly matching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling) because it
contains few climbs above UIAA II that are preferred by most
non-climbers to do with rope.

I guess, that makes it a grade1 scramble then, whereas use of hands
to advance might make a higher grade scramble? C.f.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/understanding-scrambling-grades The site is
operated by a business, no idea if that is just something they made up
or if use is spread wider.

That web page is quite interesting, thanks for sharing. Who has
sufficient experience to judge whether it's not only the publisher's but
a more wide spread definition?

Before doing a grade 2 scramble, they suggest to learn at least climbing
V Diff which is an UIAA IV- according to converter in
https://www.thecrag.com/en/article/grades Because the current proposal
clearly limits highway=scramble to UIAA II, highway=scramble could only
be used for scrambling grade 1 – but what about grade 2 and 3? In shade
of this and other aspects, I encourage to *re-think Peter's suggestion
of scramble=yes respectively scramble=1|2|3 which would allow to
properly tag _all_ scrambles,* whatever grade, whether way or node (if
it's only single points requiring hands like high steps), whatever way
type (including via_ferrata that can be well scrambled without
equipment, track, river bed,...). Also, that would bring OSM's
definition much closer to the one posted above and to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambling

I like on the proposed tag, that discriminating by use of hands makes
it much more easy on mappers, many of which just do not have the
desire to become proficient in sac_scale.

I agree and at the same time I do not see a much better information
precision until we have a much clearer definition of "when are hands
required"  That's no real issue for scrambles of grade 2+3, just grade 1.

I doubt, that many routers or renderers will have to change anything.
To the opposite, very few routers and renderes will have to.

Thanks for triggering re-thinking it. I guess you're right – as a hiker
and climber, I use virtually only data consumers that are able and
expected to show/consider scrambles, but many people do only car
navigation, kayaking, cycling,... and will even be happy to get rid of
"all the useless clutter" 

Best regards,
Georg

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

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

2022-09-17 Thread Asa Hundert

Hello Georg, yes, Ueli Steck certainly is the wrong person, to grade
anything openstreetmap trails. I was a bit surprised, that
openstreetmap does not have a path up Eiger. If so, I'd propose
"highway=mountaineering" for it, just like the one up Mönch, which now
is T6 in fine-print, while personally, I'd say, that sac_scale there
is just "not_applicable".

In one of the Snowdon photos, a woman is using hands for balance. I
guess, that makes it a grade1 scramble then, whereas use of hands to
advance might make a higher grade scramble? C.f.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/understanding-scrambling-grades The site is
operated by a business, no idea if that is just something they made up
or if use is spread wider.

I like on the proposed tag, that discriminating by use of hands makes
it much more easy on mappers, many of which just do not have the
desire to become proficient in sac_scale. There certainly are a number
of scrambles in the data that are not marked, because mappers are not
even aware, that key sac_scale exists. More over, as we have seen in
this thread, even proficient hikers can get it quite wrong, likely due
to cultural background.

I doubt, that many routers or renderers will have to change anything.
To the opposite, very few routers and renderes will have to. Even
those routers, that claim "hiking" profiles usually give unreasonable
estimates. And the other consumers will get a reminder before they
fill any gaps. I see introduction of a special tag a win win
situation.

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

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? 樂




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

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 浪

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

2022-09-16 Thread Asa Hundert

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

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

2022-09-15 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 6:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> here is an example for a mountain situation where you should probably have
> the right shoes, and someone in sneakers of flip flops, or pushing (well,
> carrying at this point) a baby stroller would have a hard time, but it
> wouldn’t qualify for scramble or via ferrata:
>

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.

Do we need `sac_scale=no` for `paved path in a city park`?

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

here is an example for a mountain situation where you should probably have the 
right shoes, and someone in sneakers of flip flops, or pushing (well, carrying 
at this point) a baby stroller would have a hard time, but it wouldn’t qualify 
for scramble or via ferrata:

https://bergseensucht.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/file2726.jpg

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

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




sent from a phone

> On 15 Sep 2022, at 19:57, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> To map a specific type of path, say, a scramble, none of the sac_scale values 
> specifically indicates that it is in fact there. 
> If you try rendering hand-and-foot climbs for hikers, comparable to how you 
> would render steps, or a busway, you cannot be sure that a specific 
> combination of sac_scale tags and maybe other tags indicates the presence, 
> length, course and location of the scramble. The same goes for any data user 
> who wants to do anything with scrambles. 


you could indicate the sac_scale every tens or hundreds of meters if you wanted 
to, having coarse mapping sometimes will happen with highway=scramble as well, 
just look at how highway=steps is sometimes used to understand 

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

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

2022-09-15 Thread Asa Hundert

Am Do., 15. Sept. 2022 um 00:30 Uhr schrieb martianfreeloader
:
>
> 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: Where the tourism office decided to jump
on the trend and invested in iron to make well-known hiking routes
more attractive, which of course does not make a trail more difficult,
rather the opposite, if you allow yourselves to use the iron for
support. Still, there are lots of via ferratas, that truly warrant to
be based in their own tag.

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

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

Wouldn't scramble=yes with highway=path do the trick? Hurts nobody, and carries 
the exact information you want.

Peter Elderson

> Op 15 sep. 2022 om 23:26 heeft Asa Hundert  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> Am Do., 15. Sept. 2022 um 00:09 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson
> :
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well, that way, 5m path, 5m scramble, … you could achieve the
> dotted/dashed rendering on OSM Carto, that some of the "path"
> aficionados crave so much for, if only OSM Carto would follow their
> advise.
> 
> In earnest: Usage of the highway key originates from discussion on the
> forum, and I rather not take this lightly, it is indeed a new kind of
> highway, not another attribute of "path" that I propose.
> 
> ___
> 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 - highway=scramble

2022-09-15 Thread Asa Hundert

Am Do., 15. Sept. 2022 um 00:09 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson
:
>
> 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.

Well, that way, 5m path, 5m scramble, … you could achieve the
dotted/dashed rendering on OSM Carto, that some of the "path"
aficionados crave so much for, if only OSM Carto would follow their
advise.

In earnest: Usage of the highway key originates from discussion on the
forum, and I rather not take this lightly, it is indeed a new kind of
highway, not another attribute of "path" that I propose.

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

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

2022-09-15 Thread Asa Hundert

Am Do., 15. Sept. 2022 um 21:15 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny
:

> I don't usually bother breaking up a way by scale if there are no 
> intersections or PoI's along it.  There may be flat spots in among the 
> scrambles, and I generally don't bother trying to distinguish them.

In my opinion, this is the only sane way to deal with this.

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

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

2022-09-15 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 2:53 PM Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> čet, 15. ruj 2022. 19:57 Peter Elderson  je napisao:
>
>> I know, but the scale does not indicate specific things you encounter,
>> just that somewhere along the way you will be challenged.
>>
>
> That isn't true. If you tag a relation with sac_scale, then it is as you
> say. But if you tag a way with sac_scale, then this says "this sac_scale is
> exactly here, along this whole way".
>

Or at least "you can't hike this section if you're not up to handling this
sac_scale."  I don't usually bother breaking up a way by scale if there are
no intersections or PoI's along it.  There may be flat spots in among the
scrambles, and I generally don't bother trying to distinguish them.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

A sacscale isn't a thing, it's an assigned category. The same category includes 
different situations, none of which is necessarily actually present, you only 
know that at least one is there but not which one. So, if a path has a 
sac_scale which may or may not include a scramble section somewhere, sac_scale 
simply does not indicate scramble, let alone where it is, how long it is and 
other niceties.

If you split the way from just before the scramble section to just after, and 
tag only this section with appropriate sac_scale value and other attributes 
fitting for a scramble, that is a better indication, but it still does not say 
it's a scramble. 

Peter Elderson

> Op 15 sep. 2022 om 20:53 heeft Janko Mihelić  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> 
> čet, 15. ruj 2022. 19:57 Peter Elderson  je napisao:
>> I know, but the scale does not indicate specific things you encounter, just 
>> that somewhere along the way you will be challenged. 
> 
> 
> That isn't true. If you tag a relation with sac_scale, then it is as you say. 
> But if you tag a way with sac_scale, then this says "this sac_scale is 
> exactly here, along this whole way".
> 
> Janko
> ___
> 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 - highway=scramble

2022-09-15 Thread Janko Mihelić

čet, 15. ruj 2022. 19:57 Peter Elderson  je napisao:

> I know, but the scale does not indicate specific things you encounter,
> just that somewhere along the way you will be challenged.
>

That isn't true. If you tag a relation with sac_scale, then it is as you
say. But if you tag a way with sac_scale, then this says "this sac_scale is
exactly here, along this whole way".

Janko

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

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

2022-09-15 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 12:10 PM Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> To get this mess sorted out we should probably start with the discussion
> 'what is a hishway=path'. The current definition in the wiki is
> not helpful in any way. It basically says that anything can be a path,
> i.e. a way with only highway=path carries no information at all.
>

There's a saying in some hiking communities in the US:  "They call this
thing a trail."

The trouble with all the classifications is that they are subject to over-
and under-grading, and I'm afraid I don't have a good way to work around
that.

I think of one trail that I've been on multiple times that I've had
arguments about the grading of.  Some sample garden spots on that trail are
here. They're probably not the most difficult since they were places where
my daughter or I felt secure enough in our footing to pull out a camera.

https://flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/51335515628 - note the tall-ish man (me)
standing at upper right. You can see that the rock slab is totally covered
in tool marks!
https://flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/51334609512 - another treacherous slab -
covered with black ice in mid-October
https://flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/51336071749 - not horribly difficult, but a
slip could very well be fatal (and hikers have indeed died falling on that
trail)
https://flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/52336974320 - because the stuff just keeps
right on coming at you
https://flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/52360038196 - every bit as vertical as it
looks. You can see the red trail marker on the tree.

That trail has a very poor safety record - it's been called the most
dangerous hiking trail in the US - partly because of its reputation for
difficulty and danger. It draws people from New York City, with relatively
little hiking experience, who are looking to prove something. It's a point
of pride among some hikers to have done the whole 40 km (with about 2800 m
of elevation gained and lost again) in under 24 hours. I've never tried.
I'm an old man and know my limits.

For what it's worth, I'd carry technical ice gear on that trail pretty much
at any time between mid-October and mid-May.  It's a totally different game
in winter, and up in the hills winter comes early and stays late.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oOi7vvpUt0Q/VJnktGwmMDI/BoY/xYpcKlxPPqI/s1600/DSC_3880.JPG
is a typical scene - that was the ledge where we were switching from
snowshoes and ski poles to crampons and ice axes. (Oops, wait, that's a
different trail. Same mountain range, though.)

Again, for what it's worth, my daughter and I encountered one party
speaking Hoch-Alemannisch among themselves. (Or Schyzertütsch? I find that
general set of accents pretty incomprehensible, my German isn't very
good.)  The one with the best English said to me, "These mountains aren't
very high, but they're _demanding!_"  (I figure that if someone from the
actual Alps is saying that, they're probably demanding.)

One guidebook says of one section: "The rock is sound, holds are plentiful,
and route-finding is easy. Nevertheless, exposures are dramatic, and less
confident parties may wish to use a rope."

What SAC scale?  I've had arguments about that before.  I've had people
solemnly assure me that the trail is mere 'hiking' - and others tell me
that it has definitely crossed over beyond 'demanding mountain hiking' into
'alpine hiking'.  I'd put it into class 4 on the Yosemite scale (which,
being an American, is what I know best).  But a great many climbers believe
that class four is a myth:
https://www.summitpost.org/class-four-is-a-myth-problems-in-yds/891794. The
hardest moves are probably in the 5.3 or 5.4 range (again on the Yosemite
scale), but they're not exposed. My guess is that The Powers That Be are
willing to blaze it as a hiking trail because the hard moves aren't exposed
and the exposed moves aren't hard.

It's a hard problem.  Experienced climbers think nothing of this stuff, and
put it all in the "not interesting" bucket.  But they're the only ones with
enough experience to grade the trail accurately. What you need is grading
from an experienced _guide_, well versed in assessing trail difficulty with
respect to the ability and experience of clients.  But you don't get a lot
of those people mapping.

Instead, you have trails graded by folks like
https://youtu.be/k8XmjebwoQw?t=110 "You all right?" and
https://youtu.be/k8XmjebwoQw?t=134 "Holy sh*t!" who run on rock that I
climb - or by duffers (by comparison with those guys, at least!) like me.
Whose definition of 'scramble' should prevail?

Disclaimer. I'm terrible at climbing. I decided a long time ago that I was
going to stay terrible at climbing because the folks who get good at
climbing seem to have an unfortunate habit of winding up dead. I have a
good time Out There limiting myself to 'technical hiking' as opposed to
'real climbing.'

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list

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

I know, but the scale does not indicate specific things you encounter, just
that somewhere along the way you will be challenged.

To map a specific type of path, say, a scramble, none of the sac_scale
values specifically indicates that it is in fact there.
If you try rendering hand-and-foot climbs for hikers, comparable to how you
would render steps, or a busway, you cannot be sure that a specific
combination of sac_scale tags and maybe other tags indicates the presence,
length, course and location of the scramble. The same goes for any data
user who wants to do anything with scrambles.

You could argue a scramble is not a thing, or it is not important enough to
warrant special mapping, but complex categories and side attributes do not
a scramble make.

Peter Elderson


Op do 15 sep. 2022 om 18:53 schreef Yves via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Peter, the sac_scale definition on the wiki is quite thorough.
> ___
> 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 - highway=scramble

2022-09-15 Thread Yves via Tagging

Peter, the sac_scale definition on the wiki is quite thorough. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Then you still cannot indicate "this is a scramble section", only that it
may be a scramble section OR something else making the section fall into
that sac category.

So I think highway=scramble does add information, enabling data users to
search, select, deselect, process and present the feature as they see fit.
Same as e.g. highway=steps.

Is it worth the effort? Don't know.
Will it render? Don't know, that's up to the renderer.
Can people use it for their own map style or application? Yes, if it's
clearly and uniquely mapped they can, but will they? Don't know, that's up
to them.

Peter Elderson

Op do 15 sep. 2022 om 17:43 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 15 Sep 2022, at 17:34, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > If you specifically want to know where the scramble sections are, the
> sac_scale doesn't tell you, correct?
>
>
> it depends how fine grained you tag sac_scale, on a hiking route it only
> tells you the most difficult level you will encounter, but not where and
> for how long, but on single way segments you can tag the difficulty in an
> atomic way
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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 - highway=scramble

2022-09-15 Thread Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 08:16:08AM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Interpreting OSM tags to decide if a way is a hiking trail is a hot mess. In 
> my hiking map rendering I look at over a dozen tags, individually and in 
> combination, to decide if a way is a hiking trail or not. Obviously this is 
> not ideal and we should consider a better way of dealing with this.
> 
> Even though I think improvements in hiking trail tagging are good to be 
> considered, this highway=scramble strikes me as being a first cut at best and 
> its entire purpose is to remove some specific items from the  rendering as 
> displayed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ In other words, its intent is 
> “tagging for the renderer” which is against the general philosophy of tagging 
> in OSM.

This is the wrong way around. The root problem is that we have a lot
of OSM ways tagged highway=path just for the simple reason that they
get rendered on the main map. Moving some of the "paths" that really
stretch the limits of the definition out of the highway=path tag space
will correct this mistake and lead to less tagging for the renderer.

To get this mess sorted out we should probably start with the discussion
'what is a hishway=path'. The current definition in the wiki is
not helpful in any way. It basically says that anything can be a path,
i.e. a way with only highway=path carries no information at all.

Sarah

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

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




sent from a phone

> On 15 Sep 2022, at 17:34, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> If you specifically want to know where the scramble sections are, the 
> sac_scale doesn't tell you, correct? 


it depends how fine grained you tag sac_scale, on a hiking route it only tells 
you the most difficult level you will encounter, but not where and for how 
long, but on single way segments you can tag the difficulty in an atomic way

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

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

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?


Op do 15 sep. 2022 om 15:23 schreef Janko Mihelić 

> čet, 15. ruj 2022. u 14:52 Peter Elderson  napisao
> je:
>
>> Which combination(s) of highway values, sac scale values and hazard
>> values would exclusively represent a scramble (Dutch verb: klauteren, i.e.
>> going up or down there using hands and feet) to a grown-up, non-challenged,
>> average hiker without climbing skills and without special gear other then a
>> cane, hiking shoes and gloves?
>>
>
> 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
>
> Janko
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2022-09-15 Thread Yves via Tagging



Le 15 septembre 2022 15:19:58 GMT+02:00, "Janko Mihelić"  a 
écrit :
>čet, 15. ruj 2022. u 14:52 Peter Elderson  napisao je:
>
>> Which combination(s) of highway values, sac scale values and hazard values
>> would exclusively represent a scramble (Dutch verb: klauteren, i.e. going
>> up or down there using hands and feet) to a grown-up, non-challenged,
>> average hiker without climbing skills and without special gear other then a
>> cane, hiking shoes and gloves?
>>
>
>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
>
>Janko

I'll add to the list the trail_visibility= you like. 
Yves 

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

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

2022-09-15 Thread Janko Mihelić

čet, 15. ruj 2022. u 14:52 Peter Elderson  napisao je:

> Which combination(s) of highway values, sac scale values and hazard values
> would exclusively represent a scramble (Dutch verb: klauteren, i.e. going
> up or down there using hands and feet) to a grown-up, non-challenged,
> average hiker without climbing skills and without special gear other then a
> cane, hiking shoes and gloves?
>

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

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

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

Which combination(s) of highway values, sac scale values and hazard values 
would exclusively represent a scramble (Dutch verb: klauteren, i.e. going up or 
down there using hands and feet) to a grown-up, non-challenged, average hiker 
without climbing skills and without special gear other then a cane, hiking 
shoes and gloves?

Peter Elderson

> Op 15 sep. 2022 om 14:07 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> We are having this discussion despite we already have the necessary tags to 
> describe all relevant aspects, only because some map data consumers do not 
> take them into account. And these tag are not only used, they are completely 
> established (sac scale, trail visibility, hazard, etc.). There will always be 
> people acting irresponsibly, people driving their cars into subway entrances 
> because it looked as if it was possible on their satnav. The best map will 
> not prevent this, and they will probably take these paths even if they are 
> not on their map. If some map publishers do not distinguish more difficult 
> paths from simpler ones, and people get into problems because of this, it 
> should be raised with them, in OSM the information is already available.
> 
> Otherwise, where will it stop, are we going to remove places from the map 
> where people are robbed or shot much more often than in others? In the past, 
> people wanted to tag perceived (or actually statiscally proven) dangers in 
> some urban areas in places with big social and economical heterogenity. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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 - highway=scramble