Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 08:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> I remember seeing mention in the Tagging list a little while back re a new
> way of mapping highways in Japan.
>

Here it is:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_JapanTagging/RoadTypes/motorroad

Yes, it was rejected, but I wonder whether you'd even need to put it out to
OSM as a whole, or just keep it to yourself? After all, as people keep
saying, you may Use Any Tag You Like.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 18:24, Phil Wyatt  wrote:

Thanks for the clarification.

 I agree that for the average punter/tourist the Australian Walking Track
> Classification is the ‘simplest to understand in plain language’. Now can
> we benchmark that against the sac_scale?
>

Do we need to?

I remember seeing mention in the Tagging list a little while back re a new
way of mapping highways in Japan.

Couldn't we just create an Australian Walking Track scheme, adapting the
above to OSM & marked for use in Australia only? (but allowing others to
adopt it for their own countries eg South Africa would be much more likely
to use an Aussie system than SAC!)

Would need to be marked that way in Big Red Letters :-), together with a
request for overseas mappers to not try & "correct" it based on their local
conditions.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[iansteer]

If we agree that the Australian Walking Track Grading System is worth
tagging, the next question is how to tag it?

The couple I have tagged, I just did "awtgs="

I heard back from the German guy who deleted my tags (he was apologetic) and
he said he thought it was a simple misspelling of a tag because there were
only a few in the whole database.

His suggestions were:

- use "hiking_scale:awtgs" (says there are hundreds of "hiking_scale" tags
in the European Alps

- get it into the Wiki

 

Ian

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Graeme,

 

The two systems are not 100% directly relatable because they are designed for 
very different purposes. One is essentially for promotional purposes and the 
other has legal ramifications for safety, infrastructure construction. Only two 
aspects of the standard are benchmarked to the AWTGS.

 

Here is another opinion (and policy) using the various Tasmanian track 
‘systems’ (including the Australian and the AS2156) and how they are applied in 
different ways.

 

https://parks.tas.gov.au/Documents/Walking_Track_Classification_Policy_.pdf

 

The Australian system is used in Tasmania but primarily on ‘tourist tracks 
brochures’

 

It may bring up an issue as AS2156 Class 6 tracks (and hence some Class 5 in 
the AWTGS) in Tasmania are not on printed maps (however they are supplied to 
emergency services). Most are simply ‘known routes to peak X or Y’ where on the 
ground definition will be sparse or non existent. Parks Tas also has a class of 
tracks even lower than AS2156 class 6.

 

I agree that for the average punter/tourist the Australian Walking Track 
Classification is the ‘simplest to understand in plain language’. Now can we 
benchmark that against the sac_scale?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Friday, 28 January 2022 5:30 PM
To: Michael Collinson 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

 

Just doing some looking & spotted:

https://qorf-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/11153757/TrackGradingSystem_UserGuide.pdf

 

which includes

 

Glossary
AS 2156.1-2001 Walking Tracks - Classification and Signage
The Australian Walking Track Grading System benchmarks to AS 2156.1-2001.
A Grade 1 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 1 track
A Grade 2 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 2 track
A Grade 3 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 3 track
A Grade 4 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 4 track
A Grade 5 walk corresponds to AS 2165.1 Class 5 and 6 track 

 

So it appears there may only be 5 levels?

 

Would make sense as Grade 5 refers to multi-day, long-distance, remote-area 
walks!

 

Another slightly different, & possibly a bit clearer version:

https://www.trailhiking.com.au/preparing-to-hike/track-grading/

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:22, Michael Collinson mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz> > wrote:

Ian,

+1.  The AWTGS looks excellent as it works from an international perspective. 
I've also struggled with the SAC scale in the UK and Sweden, also both 
countries where the bulk of rural footpaths are barely "alpine" and also came 
to the conclusion that what matters is the type of people wanting to use the 
path rather than specific physical attributes of the path. And particularly at 
the less hardcore end.  If one substitutes "hiking" for "bushwalking", it works 
in those countries as well, IMHO.

The categories I've played with conceptually are:

- I could take my very elderly mother

- Suitable for inexperienced walkers in everyday footwear (which could include 
high heels). Less charitably: City folks stroll.

- Could I get a push-chair/stroller down here? (and by extension assisted 
wheel-chair)

- I'm fine with walking but don't want to be using my arms, (balance, 
holding-on, hauling myself up).

- I'm fine with scrambling but don't take me anywhere where I'll be nervous 
about falling off.

- Bring it on

 

I think the system satisfies the above in a nice linear fashion without too 
many categories. I'd be interested to know what the mysterious AS 2156.1-2001 
6th one is. Copied from the URL provided:

*   Grade One is suitable for people with a disability with assistance
*   Grade Two is suitable for families with young children
*   Grade Three is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience
*   Grade Four is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and
*   Grade Five is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers

Mike

On 2022-01-28 16:41, ianst...@iinet.net.au   
wrote:

I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading System.  
It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire Management - 
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system).
  The AWTGS defines 5 track grades.

 

It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD and 
NSW, and Bush Walking Australia.

 

I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a “Class”) 
as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those tags without 
reference to me!)

 

Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: 
Classification and signage”.  However, I don’t have a subscription to read the 
contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS.  Other 
documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels

 

Ian