The clubs usually take care of guideposts, trail markers and path surface.
OK, thx. Here there has been a progressive separation of roles; the local authorities have budgets for maintaining the routes, they sometimes subcontract the job to clubs, and some of the resulting routes receive a quality label by the national federation. As a result, there is no reliable figure for the total length of the network.
1 Like
In the while, most renderers still draw that dangerous route.
I would remove it again, except that person would threaten me again and put it back on. What would you do in this case? I mean, if you were the one that risked their life there, and would like to prevent others to do the same mistake?
Please link to it in OSM so that people can comment sensibly without guessing. Also please indicate which renderer you used to create that random screenshot.
Please also say which others were the âmost renderersâ that you looked at.
Edit: Also note that a couple of months ago I explained a process that the DWG used to deal with a similar situation. I suspect that the same process would work here.
The way that was in OSM has been deleted, so maybe someone has added it back. However, there was a suggestion (I think in this thread, but I might be mistaken) that you were using maps that were never updated. Thatâs why more details are needed
1 Like
Donât exaggerate, youâre not risking your life by removing a way from OSM. Or do you? (just could not resist making a joke).
More seriously, I would advise to avoid removing it yourself: youâve already been involved, and this could trigger the edit war that you have previously tried to avoid. Someone else could do it, or at least add appropriate tags, if there is a consensus that safety should come first whenever there is this kind of doubt.
I believe they meant that one could still risk their life trying to hike that route thinking it was a âpathâ.
1 Like
However, the rendering now indicates it is not just another path - it is rendered differently from the path on the west of the saddle. So to me it all seems good as of now (until we have =pathless).
The title of this thread is misleading. Apparently, the route is marked as path, not as footpath. Perhaps that does not make too much difference but there are endless discussions on what path is and/or how to mark routes such as the one here.
This is also a valid path:
and is marked as such.
Irrespective of the case, if one feels they are risking their lives on a route (and are not comfortable with it), they should turn around and go back.
1 Like
Suggest a proposal for the solution of that problem, participate in the discussions and lobby for it.
Deleting a route that can also save lives is not a solution.
1 Like
I think I wrote that before: Most of the problems that come from mapping pathless or scrambling routes as highway=path;++ will be handled just this way. These people will learn, not to trust openstreetmap. I have heard such said about Komoot, it just cannot be trusted.
The cases where mountain rescue will have to go out due to that rather rare. Sometimes backing-up just beyond the resources of the people, when they get aware of how deep they are in their mess.
This is a prime example of a pathless route. When it was added back into the data (deviating quite a bit from the first instance) I shortened the tagging there from âhighway=path;type=routeâ to âhighway=routeâ, removing this level of redirection, that some here are so fond of. Of course this was immediately changed to highway=path again.
A bit of polling back then showed, that many here are fine with the use of highway=path for pathless routes, where nothing on the ground, no trampling, no markers, even UIAA III climbing not seen problematic. There is a new topic on that, where of course everything said here gets repeated over and over.
1 Like
Itâs the same for Alltrails, the internet is full of similar stories: donât trust them, they show things as trails that arenât trails.
@erutan put quite a bit of work into working out rough SAC scale equivalents in other scales e.g. YDS scale, see here. Maybe putting that as a table on the Wiki could encourage uptake of sac_scale by mappers outside Europe? That would be a good thing, regardless of what comes out of the âwhat should be tagged as highway=pathâ debate.
Iâm guessing** here that youâre referring to this edit to this way? If so the change was to highway=route, which is an entirely new tagging. Itâs been mentioned in some of the innumerable path threads here, but so has everything else.
The changeset description did not explain why the change was made - it just said âIf it is a route, then it is a routeâ (which reminds me of one of the dumber political slogans of recent times). It doesnât try and explain why the change was made. It doesnât make a case after the revert why that revert was wrong. It doesnât try and escalate to the DWG, with evidence, why highway=path is incorrect here.
Instead, we have had endless B Ark-level threads on this forum asking yet more questions and inventing yet more tagging that literally no-one has ever used.
@Superfebs If you believe that someone has changed the tagging of something in OSM in a dangerous way, and that the highway=path tag that was applied in changeset 156065721 was incorrect because that way is not in any normal sense a path report it to the DWG. If you tried to discuss it with the mapper and they have refused, we can make them choose between either discussing it or not editing OSM any more.
If you believe that there are maps and apps out there that misrepresent OSM data then say which ones and say what they get wrong. There may be âvalidâ reasons (perhaps a particular map is no longer updated) or there may not be.
You will need to explain in detail what the problem is - link to the OSM way and OSM changeset concerned; donât just post random screenshots and expect everyone to figure out what you mean from there and guess what map it might be.
** Iâm guessing because no-one has actually linked to the current data that is apparently wrong.
3 Likes
that risked their life
Iâm sorry to be so frank, but your attitude is just really wrong for alpinism, because itâs about personal responsibility. Even on traditional maps (Alpine Club, CAI) you can find âdifficultâ routes with climbing up to UIAA II; itâs up to the mountaineer to evaluate the route, and in this case he/she has all the information you need: sac scale and visibility of the path.
PS: I looked it up, even on hiking maps like 4Land or Kompass this path exists, so I would recommend to just leave it as it is.
1 Like
What is a ânormalâ path? According to Wiki and common practice, paths can go up to climbing UIAA II (T6). Thats no a sunday hike, but for alpinists doable. The map is full of such âdifficultâ paths in the Alps.
I have just searched https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath on my phone and âuiaaâ does not exist in that page
To be fair to the wiki, it does take considerable time explaining that path is a crap tag, and why data consumers should beware of things tagged with it.
When I said ânot in any normal sense a pathâ it was in the context of a suggested email to the DWG, and I went on to say that that email should also explain why the tag didnât fit the OSM object, and in the context of the British English usage that is the foundation of OSM tagging.
I would expect any discussion about the tagging a particular way to take into account lots of things, including impressions gained from survey, not just the OSM wiki.
You seem to be saying "but I want to use path for this. Perhaps you should explain why, beyond âI have always done it like thisâ?
To be clear - the issue of concern here is that crap maps and apps will just show a âpathâ like something you could go for a Sunday stroll on. Arguing that âthey should look at sac_scaleâ should happen with the app developers, not here.
1 Like
âhighway=path has also become commonly used for steep, rugged routesâ
and SAC T6 goes up to UIAA II scale, its even on the Wiki.
Because all alpinist mappers do it like this[1], because it is in guidance with the Wiki (the sac_scale page even encourage to use path) and because all other hiking maps do it like this[2] and because most of the renderers and outdoor apps already use sac_scale tag to inform about difficulty?
[1] In Italy alone there are about 2000 paths with T6 and T5. If you have mountaineering experience, you know these are not really visible routes. UIAA II is already climbing where you have to use both hands.
[2] Maps from Alpenverein, CAI et al. use dash density to indicate the difficulty, but these sort of T6 and T5 paths (even this specific path) are still mapped as path. The screenshot above (Komoot) also use a less densed dashness to indicate the difficulty. This cartographic approach has been established centurys ago and good skilled hikers know that.
If not, isnât it reasonable to ask for that trail to be removed? There are plenty of websites where you can find and download GPX tracks for several mountain adventures, alongside with a description of them and the equipment and skills needed
This argument could also be used to remove climbing routes and via ferratas. There are also outdoor apps like Bergfex that render them (with other colors, but still) as paths. Should we really do this because some people do not prepare enough for their hikes?
6 Likes
I opened one of those I have around, a paper map that is: Here the map legend:
Alpenverein (ĂAV) is the top local ramblers club in Austria. It is the second biggest club in all of the country, only behind the motorists club 
They operate their own cartography. There is no indication on difficulty given in their maps. The same holds for the administrative map of Austria https://maps.bev.gv.at/ and basemap.at Karte that shows more or less the same trails.
I am not aware, that the SAC (Swiss Alpine Club) publishes maps by itself. The Swiss administration does, https://map.geo.admin.ch/ - The signatures there are very similar to the ĂAV/BEV maps. I have not found a map legend.
These are cartographers not tour guides. If people want to learn about the difficulty, there are guide books covering all the routes, even more of them than openstreetmap has. Including estimates on duration and detailed descriptions of where the key spots are.
That is what sets openstreetmap apart from them: Openstreetmap caters to be tour guide too. I rather not dive into footwear requirements again.
PS: How to word that â Coverage of *alpine_hiking trails in openstreetmap in Austria or Switzerland is a bit better than on the AV or administrative maps. Especially the two top grades.
PPS: As Kompass was mentioned, I overlaid their PRO map of the Conca delle Levade with OSM, and one of both must be severely wrong in where there are paths and streams, not only the sentiero (path) 30. I guess I know who.
4 Likes
If we had that legend as a template in editors, more than half of the path problems would not exist.
2 Likes
We would also have a new expression: tagging for the legend.
Whatâs wrong with that? The tagging scheme would be legendary.
We should consider the needs of renderers writ large rather than uncritically catering to the quirks of a specific renderer. In the same vein, we should take into consideration the distinctions that map legends generally make, because they tell us whether our ontology is on the right track from an end userâs perspective. After all, mapmaking is an art as much as a science â specifically, the art of graphic design, responsible for reliably communicating a science of geography.
@Hungerburgâs example is not particularly arbitrary: itâs a direct response to a claim that âall the hiking mapsâ have been making a certain distinction for centuries, particularly this one. Apparently that specific claim was provably false. Regardless, my first reaction upon seeing the post was to want more examples of legends from maps for hikers and other outdoor adventurists. One map doesnât necessarily prove a larger point, but with enough maps, we can sense a consensus among map publishers that probably reflects how map users see the world too.
4 Likes