On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:55 AM Volker Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > There is at least one other scale: cai_scale which is similar in concept to > sac_scale,but is applied to hiking relations. It's increasingly used in Italy.
The problem with both of these is that they're _alpinism_ scales, not _hiking_ scales. They basically lump anything that doesn't require the equipment and skills for technical climbing into the lowest level or two. Of course, the problem with grading a trail is that once you're reasonably skilled and conditioned, they all start to look 'pretty easy'. To get a fair assessment, you need to ask a guide, rather than a hiker or climber, to get a clear idea of what the guide would expect that clients' reactions would be. That's similar to how a ski resort would grade green/blue/red/black/double-black (or orange, or whatever...). The instructors, not the skiers, do the grading, and they compare their ratings with neighbouring resorts. One scale that's more addressed at hiking has from time to time enjoyed some popularity in North America. It's a bit too fine-grained and subjective for OSM, but it gives a better range for _hiking_ difficulty as opposed to _climbing_ difficulty: 1 = Flat and smooth 2 = Flat terrain but uneven treadway, or slight elevation change 3 = Moderate elevation change, but well graded trail, or flat trail with very rough treadway 4 = Strenuous climbs, but of moderate duration, or short but steep climbs 5 = Lengthy graded climbs, alternating with easier sections 6 = Extended climbs that may last hours or shorter climbs with difficult footing 7 = Includes rock scrambling that is relatively easy and of short duration 8 = Includes rock scrambling that is somewhat challenging 9 = Rock scrambling that is difficult and extended 10 = Use of hands required for extended periods of climbing, footing precarious, and leaping may be required — not recommended for those with fear of heights and not in good physical condition. Shorter hikers may be at a disadvantage On the SAC scale, all of these are grade 1 or 2! (Optional: Corrections for such things as mud, encroaching vegetation, tricky stream crossings, or the likelihood of beaver activity. I can think of one trail of about 20 km that's all level 2 on the scale above - except that halfway through it, there's a 30-m-wide river to cross!) Even with the alpinism scales, we lack a way to recognize that the conditions in many places vary seasonally. With one New York trail that I have in mind, it's class 3+/4 on the Yosemite scale in the summer - not for a beginner, nor for someone with no head for heights, but an experienced hiker will have fun. In winter (and recall that in the New York mountains, the four seasons are Winter, June, July and August), it's an entirely different beast: a relatively easy but still technical ice or mixed-ice climb, probably about a WI2/MI2 depending on how much ice there is on a particular day. When I did it, it was with a party of hikers of varying gear and technical skill, and those of us who had 12-point crampons and ice axes wound up top-roping those who had just trail crampons and ski poles. (Which worked out - there were only a couple of technical ice pitches and everyone made it up safely.) On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:05 AM Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Of course, as I observed above - which is what motivated the 'ask a guide' remark. Don't sneer at less-skilled hikers, runners, or riders; try to come up with some sort of assessment of the skill level required. > If a trail has steep uphill and downhill sections, I'd split that section out > and tag it with incline=*. You can do that - but I don't think I've ever tagged `incline=*`. As far as I can tell, that's what digital elevation models are for! In any case, what you propose burdens both the mapper and the data consumer with needing to deal with extraordinarily fine detail - mapping every rock pitch and mudhole - together with the data consumer needing to have a complex model for how this impacts difficulty. In a sparsely-populated and necessarily sparsely-mapped region, it doesn't provide a way to begin by "filling in the canvas with broad brush strokes." At least the ten-point scale above offers some guidance. I'm now thinking of a time that my daughter and I met some flatlanders on a trail, who were complaining that the guidebook said it was 'easy'. It was, by the scale of the local trails. If the guidebook had instead called it a level 5 (about a 5 km graded route with maybe 600 m of ascent), they'd have possibly had a better idea of what they were getting into. (They'd totally not be ready for the level 9/10 that would be encountered on a lot of the trails in that particular wilderness area!) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
