As a maybe simpler and less controversial (haha) alternative to:
What about extending SAC scale by one point with sac_scale=strolling, which would sit at virtual T0 (T1 to T6 corresponding to the scale from hiking to difficult_alpine_hiking)?
It would avoid having competing classifications for walking trails. It would address the need (expressed by some) to distinguish between easy hiking terrain, which however can be problematic for somebody who needs to use walking aids etc. and really easy paths where one can assume even people with limited mobility would have no issues (things like wide smooth trails with a lot of foottraffic, they tend to be around carparks and national park officies etc. but that is not central to the definition at all).
Of course, nothing like that is in the official SAC scale, However, if I understand it correctly, OSM has its own SAC scale and the definitions published by the Swiss Alpine Club are not binding. Anyway, sac_scale=strolling would not clash with it. And the main problem people seem to have (apart from SAC being Eurocentric) with SAC scale is that it is not granular enough at the lower scale. The other problem is that some see it limited to mountains but I think it can be used (with a bit of leeway) to any terrain that is potentially badly walkable, like cliffy coasts or valleys or gorges and so on.
Of course a downside is that seven keys to a scale is too many. But the complaint is that it is not enough :-D.
I’d agree, with the caveat that we stop taking about “T anything” . We’re not discussing the SAC Mountain and Alpine Hiking Scale.(pdf), we’re taking about the sac_scale key used in OSM. As has been discsussed ad nauseam, there are significant differences. Sure, the OSM one is based on the Swiss original but there are significant differences in wording too.
If the OSM tag sac_scale has now diverged from the SAC (Schweizer Alpen-Club) Mountain and Alpine Hiking Scale, then what does the sac part of the OSM tag stand for? Perhaps strolling and climbing?
OSM has lots of tags that mean nearly the same as, but not quite, as their English equivalent, including city, highway, path et al. Let’s not worry about one more.
I could live with that I think, if the wiki page for sac_scale was rewritten substantially to reflect this. In particular, making clear that the tag name was inspired by the SAC concept but is not the same thing. And also that it is not specific to mountain hiking. (I suppose this means that in Switzerland itself, the OSM sac_scale would apply to paths not considered by the actual SAC, and might disagree with it for some paths graded on the actual SAC Scale).
This all feels a bit awkward, and it’s yet another example of a tag name we wouldn’t choose if we could start from scratch. But if may be the best way to avoid a situation where in 10 years’ time new mappers puzzle over ways tagged with both foot_scale and sac_scale. Just as some unfortunate new mappers now, unaware of the long saga of Public Transport v2, puzzle over the significance of tiny wording differences in the wiki pages of railway=station versus public_transport=stop_position.
However, I say all this from the point of view that the proposed scale would have only 4 points for me (levels 0 to 2, and “too hard, not going to survey”). I can’t remember if there were also issues at higher grades that foot_scale was meant to address.
Edit: I also agree with the previous post that we should stop referring to T1 etc. - I temporarily forgot that the actual values don’t use these, so we are not stuck with them.
I do agree that the relationship with the proper SAC_scale should be clarified. Also I think it should be allowed for other steep environments, not just high mountains (now wiki suggests it is only for mountaneous areas, not sure if Salvaggio Blu: a trekking in the shepherds' Sardinia would qualify). Not sure how far one can go in slight adjustments without a vote :-). I guess it is for sure used outside of mountains.
I can also live with sac_scale in OSM being the same as SAC_scale in the Alps and be more generalist and slightly different everywhere else.
Somewhere @yvecai wrote along the lines of “quite some work to get out the SAC from sac_scale” in foot_scale topic. I cannot find the link.
From my perspective, a homebrew foot_scale has potential far beyond what sac_scale has. The wording alone makes it a bad fit for most of the world and will forever cause mis-taggings of something decidedly not-hiking according to sac_scale but given value hiking nevertheless, just because there are no mountains around.
Said that, I certainly won’t oppose a proposal to create “sac_scale=strolling”, I’d probably even approve, if it showed consequently what more casual than casual or less than no obstacles means.
I wonder where this idea comes from. Many paths and hikes that I’ve seen don’t even go to the mountains. They are graded T1 and T2. The scale originates from the mountain areas but I don’t think it is limited to them. It represents difficulty, that’s all.
I am wondering, what does that do with value “hiking”, as others have said:
Everything that is now graded “hiking (T1)” will become due to reconsideration?
In another topic I toyed with https://routing.spline.de/ - much like all the three routers on the openstreetmap website their pedestrian guide routes a way, that I personally would not dare to suggest to my elderly neighbours. It is steep, incline=30%;surface=earth tagged and gives ETA only beatable by seasoned walkers. Apart from steepness, there are no technical difficulties there. Tagging sac_scale=hiking in addition might make a difference though, when sac_scale=strolling would be introduced, would it?
After all though, I would have expected incline to be much more popular than sac_scale. If that gets ignored, why bother with esoteric tags?
I was always under the opinion that the SAC scale shows difficulty of a path. If it is fairly steep, it would certainly not be a T1.
For reference:
T1 is “Flat or slightly inclined” and “No steady footing necessary. Can be walked in trainers.” while T2 is “Steep in parts”. T3 includes “pathless steep terrain”.
So, I would certainly not mark a 30%-inclined path with T1.
However, the “0-grade” might mean something like “beautiful paved paths, suitable for elderly, small children, wheelchair access or the use of walking aid”, etc. and I’m all for it, if that would resolve this issue.
Edit: It would not be “T0” but would mean “lower/outside the SAC scale”.
Oh, perhaps worth mentioning - I see the sac_scale as a general information on how difficult a way is. The other tags, like surface, incline, width, smoothness and so on, can clarify what makes it difficult.
Unfortunately I hadn’t realised this had got as far as a proposal on the wiki. Apologies for not having commented on the draft, but there are so many discussions in progress about paths and walking that it’s easy to overlook actual proposals.
If I’d seen it in time, I would have liked to comment on “Use this tag solely on ways used for hiking, as it solves a domain specific need.” I don’t really understand this restriction, and the 3rd photo (Gold Coast Oceanway) doesn’t really look like a hiking trail. I can see this causing confusion as it’s quite difficult to interpret (at face value it seems to say that the strolling tag should be used on hiking trails to show they are not hiking trails).
Well, lets see if there are more comments that only will appear once the voting starts :-). If there are, I can rework the proposal. I guess this depends on definition on hiking - I think any recreational walking can fall under it. Though it is a bit developed-world centric as I know in many parts of the world, trails are still used for practical pedestrian transport.
Personally I would not mind removing that restriction. However, I think this is a minor thing and not subject to the vote (it is taken from the current version of the wiki). So I would not be opposed to removing that restriction post vote and independent of it (if there is something like a consensus). Especially if I think this restriction is probably not heeded anyway :-D.
. We’re not discussing the 