On 26/1/22 19:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey
<[email protected]> wrote:
If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be
something like:
technicality=0-3
0. Well formed, even surface (could almost walk it blindfolded).
1. Uneven surface, trip hazards from rocks, tree roots etc.
2. Large steps, long steps, may be slippery (wet, mossy or
loose surface), likely need to use hands for balance, low or
tight sections that you need to crouch
3. Short sections where you're almost pulling your whole body
weight with your arms (with or without a hand rope). Highest
level short of proper rock climbing.
Nicely thought out!
Would you also add in River Crossing, possibly as 3, pushing
climbing up to 4?
Good point. River crossings are important to consider and do affect
the overall technicality of the walk. I would consider river crossings
fitting into level 2, as they are similar (large steps, long steps,
slippery, likely need hands for balance).
I would support a new tag to describe each river crossing, we have
already:
- bridge=yes (where you can walk over)
- tunnel=culvert (when the waterway goes under the walkway)
- ford=stepping_stones (creek crossing, but stepping stones exist so
you won't usually get wet)
- ford=yes (which on a highway=footway/path is saying it's a
creek/river crossing where the waterway flows over the path or the
path goes through the river/creek)
Obviously river conditions change, but I think it's useful to tag
what's usually the case:
0 creek/river crossing where there is usually no water.
1. creek crossing where generall the water level is so low that you
won't have water ingress in your shoes
2. creek crossing where your body will stay dry but you'll want to
take your shoes off if you prefer to keep them dry
3. river crossing where your body will get wet, may have a rope to
help you cross, but you can wade through the water and won't usually
need to swim
4. river crossing where you'll need to swim across
I don't like using numbers as values as they aren't self explanatory
but I can't think of short terms you could use for tag values.
I've always thought of ford as more being a road was built and the
watercourse flows over that road, whereas walking it's more usually
the track stops/ends at either end and you're going through the
watercourse, maybe it's just semantics though.
Some 'fords' have pipes under them to take the usual water flow off the
road/path. I still map them as 'fords'.. as that is what they resemble.
In the Australian context there's also probably remoteness
measure, but these would be too subjective to tag on
individual ways and probably could simply be a function of
distance to nearest facilities.
0. urban bushwalks
1. not too remote, mostly day walks
2. remote or multiday walks
I would think something on the ease of communication?
1. Good cell phone coverage (it does not matter which provider when
calling 000/112)
2 Cell phone coverage on the peaks only, the peaks being frequent.
3 PLB advised as cell phone coverage is too sparse or non existent.
How about water? In an Oz context, heat / thirst is often a bigger
problem than cold, so would you have some form of tag for
availability of water resupply? (apart from just having rivers /
streams mapped)
Yes that's part of it, but I think it's best to keep the tag as narrow
and possible and not mix in orthogonal measures. You could have a well
formed even surface walk but very remote and you need supplies,
likewise you could have a walk which needs pulling your body weight
up, but you don't need any supplies.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
