Hi, Fellow trail runner (& MTB rider) here.
Obviously there isn't a concrete proposal with any proposed tags, however this sounds very subjective (if not using existing observable tagging) and I think a runner's skill will determine the technicality a lot more than the trail itself. For example, I love bombing down steep, loose and rocky single track whereas others I run with can't do the same. I think the existing tags cover your examples, I've responded below, you'd have to provide a photo example of a trail that you don't think you can adequately map using existing tags for anyone to provide more detail. > Some factors to determine values: stability/softness of surface Does surface=* not already provide enough here? dirt, gravel, etc? Maybe we need another value for something you don't think fits? > obstacles (rocks, roots etc.) smoothness=* would be the best tag here, it describes something verifiable and for all trail users. > running rhythm (short ups/downs, sharp turns etc.) and attention required. Short sections and sharp turns are defined by the trail geometry already. If a trail has steep uphill and downhill sections, I'd split that section out and tag it with incline=*. The trail router could roughly calculate elevation gain with an average incline for a segment. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:47 AM Daniel Westergren <wes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > I would like to discuss the possibility of a new tag, trail_technicality, > to be used on ways with highway=path. > > One way this can be used is aid in finding trails to run on and to get > suggested routes with tools like Trail Router (www.trailrouter.com), > Komoot (www.komoot.com) or Open Route Service ( > https://maps.openrouteservice.org/). > > *What tags are already available?* > *sac_scale *is the obvious choice to determine trail difficulty. But it's > geared towards mountain trails and I doubt it's being used much outside of > mountain trails. > > *mtb:scale* is closer to what I'm proposing, but geared towards > single-trail technicality for MTB, not for running (or hiking). > > Then there's *surface*, *width*, *trail_visibility*, *smoothness *(for > wheeled vehicles) that can all be used to determine what kind of path it > is, but they don't really tell anything about the technicality of > single-trails. > > *How to use the tag?* > It would only be used for single-trails, that is in ways with > highway=path. I don't have a set suggestion of values, but I'm thinking > something similar to mtb:scale, basically with runnability as the > determining factor. It would obviously leave room for subjective judgement, > just like smoothness and trail_visibility. But with image examples and > clear factors describing each value it would still give a lot of useful > information to route planners and renderers. > > Some factors to determine values: stability/softness of surface, obstacles > (rocks, roots etc.), running rhythm (short ups/downs, sharp turns etc.) and > attention required. > > *Use-cases* > As mentioned, trail_technicality could be used together with other values > in route planners and renderers, to suggest routes based on user preference > (technical trails <-> road running), but also to roughly estimate running > time (in addition to elevation/slopes). > > > What do you think? > > /Daniel Westergren > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Jono
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
