Well it’s against mapping it as a highway=path (that was the question asked).
There is at least one precedent for “removing a highway=path because it would mislead people”. The path concerned is in the English Lake District here, and pretty much everyone involved (apart from one problematic user) agreed that the best way to map it was not as a highway=path. In the Lake District example there was an easier path there previously, but weather and rockfalls have made it significantly more dengerous, and the land managers of the area (starting with AWMapperhere) closed the path.
With a DWG hat on I enforced this with this and subsequent blocks (and the problem user eventually deleted their account due to conflict caused by other problems with their mapping).
The case here is a bit different though - there’s a small majority only that it shouldn’t be a highway=path. For now I’d suggest waiting a few days for a response from CAI Salò (they were asked to post here and join the conversation). If they won’t do that, then I’d suggest you edit the path to something more appropriate (but I wouldn’t just delete it though). If they continue the edit war without explaining their position in the forum the DWG can take action against them until they do.
The other action that can be taken is to try and influence those maps that show highway=path; sac_scale=alpine_hiking as something similar to a “Sunday afternoon stroll” to fix their map rendering, as per the numerous discussions here et al.
The challenge in your case is that we know that at least one of the maps that you were using isn’t updated any more, and at least one is designed to be an actual hiking map (on which such routes, appropriately rendered, might be entirely reasonable to show).
In short (and this is a “personal” rather than a “DWG” opinion) I think we need a highway type for something “more difficult than the vast majority of highway=path”, and I think we need renderers to be aware of the other tags that highway=path can have in OSM data right now to suggest it’s not suitable for a “Sunday afternoon stroll”.
As an example, the maps I create myself don’t show this path on the map here by default unless a non-default overlay is enabled. That’s just one approach, but the code is available.
Isn’t that the point? People use this as a mountain path, why wouldn’t it be mapped?
Even more important, it marks a way to pass a mortally-dangerous terrain around.
This should then apply to you, as well?
One could argue that you are trying to solve a specific problem in a wrong manner. As SomeoneElse explained, if there is a problem with a renderer, then please try to solve it there.
If a path is marked with T6, it should set alarm bells ringing for anyone just hiking recreationally.
The path being moved around by snow and avalanches could explain the change in the route. Unless someone surveys the route, I would take all this with a grain of salt.
Do you have much experience scrambling and climbing? Particularly levels T5 and T6 in hiking paths (scrambling), or levels 3-4-5 on the rock (sports climbing and multi-pitch)? If yes, then your opinion would have merit about the appropriateness of the route. Otherwise, thanks for raising the issue (it obviously is an issue, and not only at this particular path) but I would involve someone else, who frequents such routes, to provide an opinion based on survey and/or adjust the route.
In the case that I did, although it is clear that there is a path used by others (not as frequently as some here would want, and the terrain is mostly rock so unless you get thousands of people walking there, it would be hard to leave visible marks), I have only marked the cairns that I photographed. This should provide enough information to those who want to cross the area.
In your case, I assume that cairns would not stay there for long, unfortunately. And, having painted marks on a moving terrain could be counterproductive.
Is it so clear that there is a path? It depends on how you define a path, e.g. if you require some visibility then there is no path. What strikes me is the number of implicit definitions that are at work here and that are difficult to reconcile. Same in other settings, e.g. the recurring path vs cycleway controversy.
Exactly. We are looking for an appropriate name. How would one call a line over which people walk?
And, what I would be particularly interested in, how does one call a specific route through which it is possible to pass an otherwise dangerous terrain, and move from a safe point A to a safe point B? The route itself may be marked with cairns or paint, or not at all.
Excuse me? I’ve heard of Strava from one person in the last 10 years of hiking and climbing and would tend to disagree about it being relevant for almost anything.
However, even for normal hiking, no Strava marks do not mean an area is not frequented at all. It might be a hint that very little people move somewhere though.