Note that in the SAC scale, T6 is already defined as ‘mostly unmarked’:
Mapping this as T6 seems more than adequate.
1 Like
you are only considering the visibility part and totally ignoring the “Grade II scrambling” part of the link you posted. That route has grade III passages: it is harder than that.
Why do you want to ignore this?
I think it’s very relevant, and crucial for the very safety of people embarking on that route without the knowledge of what to expect.
T6 also indicates severe exposures. If the UIAA III difficulties are few and far in between and are not very exposed, I think T6 is more than adequate. One needs to look at the whole of the description (read all the PDF with the discussion below the definitions). To my mind, T6 already means “if you make a mistake, you might die”, which I am not even sure applies here. But it is hard to judge without having been there.
TL;DR SAC scale is a holistic classification.
1 Like
Please keep a civil tone.
I wasn’t commenting on the climbing grade. Climbing is not one of my competencies.
However, mappers do use highway=path with climbing:grade:uiaa=3:
So if you want to discuss whether that in combination with highway=path is appropriate, a broader forum seems advisable. You could argue that highway=path is not suitable for alpine trails at all, but that goes beyond this one trail. Currently, it seems tagged according to how mappers concerned with mountain trails do this currently.
If you want to prevent unsuspecting people from taking a trail beyond their capabilities, then there is plenty you can do. OSM tools aimed at hiking which show trails with a SAC-scale of 4 and higher without clearly marking these as trails which require training and adequate equipment could be improved. General purpose maps could alter the rendering of these trails indicating their status.
OSM websites which focus on hiking trails could also reiterate that anyone going up into the mountains is ultimately responsible for their own actions, and any and all paths and trails should be judged on their on-the-ground merits. Maps can contain mistakes, or become outdated real fast when bad weather damages a trail.
6 Likes
I was certainly insistent, but also certainly didn’t want to offend you.
My apologies if that didn’t sound civil.
Back to the discussion,
That is exactly what I was trying to fix here 
Edit: I definitely think that “trail_visibility = no” and sac_scale=T6 are at least a great improvement over the previous state.
All well and good, but the point is that a fault-free map does not exist. If you want to prevent people from making your mistake, focus on educating them. Technologically, that can mean making sure T4, T5, T6 routes are not used by navigation software unless requested or acknowledged as advanced hiking routes, and providing adequate rendering depending on the function of the map. I have no idea how well this is done at the moment.
Locus Map looks like proprietary software, so the most you can do there is send feedback if their visualisation could be improved. I know OsmAnd (free and premium available, F-Droid has the full free premium version) can render the SAC-scales in different patterns.
Fair enough.
@Superfebs and others, thanks for a refreshingly civil and smart discussion on this. I think there were some great points made on all counts. Reading through threads like this one make me glad to be a part of OSM!
1 Like
@SomeoneElse Are you moderator in this category? Would you please split the voting post Alpinist routes marked as footpaths - #39 by Hungerburg into a separate topic? Perhaps titled: Alpinist routes marked as footpaths: A poll?
Voting is very close, UIAA III and nothing on the ground whatsoever to make a highway=path should get more attention. IMHO this expands what is documented, perhaps documentation in need of change?
PS: Please do not copy the patronizing follow up posts into the new topic.
1 Like
No - just in “Help and Support”.
It depends. So if you ask “Can a path in OSM stand for this?” I say yes, because it might.
If it’s a section of a longer route, in principal with route markings, I am ok with mapping it as a “virtual” path, in order to complete the route relation. Proper mountain scale attributes are essential.
I would probably change to “No” once self-routing between two fixed points becomes standard practice, supported by an adequate mapping and tagging agreement.
In short, my option would be “Acceptable until something better is approved”.
1 Like
… except that once a temporary solution is chosen, it tends to become an argument against adopting a more durable one
3 Likes
Why not follow these guidelines:Good practice - OpenStreetMap Wiki ?
If Superfebs say (and I am pretty sure they have looked for ANY sign of a trail/markings ) the path should be deleted i OSM. What the ‘paper mappers’ have on the maps , who cares ?
The temp solution has already been adopted in several use cases of routing over an area. Hell, every road (wider then a few meters) mapped as a way is an example! Waterways, fairways, pedestrian areas and beaches included in a route, ferry’s, the list goes on and on.
And unmarked/self-navigated sections of routes.
I think this boat has already sailed.
1 Like
My point exactly. Which makes arguing for a solution using its temporary nature a bit misleading because there no temporary solution in OSM, only boats that leave the shore with no return.
(and just in case: my own opinion is that it should be represented by ways, just not paths or any other kind of ways that entails visibility; exactly what is done for ferry boats)
1 Like
Having also been trapped by a highway=path in the mountains that doesn’t actually exist, I find it dangerous to leave it in OpenStreepMap in the form highway=path, regardless of the secondary tags.
A mountaineering route is not a path. It’s just a set of geographical coordinates through which you can pass, and some ancillary landmarks (cairns, pitons…).
There should be a specific main tag (highway=‘climbing_route’ or something like that).
9 Likes
… and that is exactly why we need the “temporary” solution, because none of these “should” opinions (including my own) is likely to get broad support.
What would then be the use of “trail_visibility=no”?
It could be useful for an automatic conversion.
4 Likes
it could be on the ways that are in a route
2 Likes