I’d like to have your guidance regarding this path that I saw on the map.
My impression is that this path is just the route that one person took and decided to add to the map to show that one can connect two points from the map.
My view is that, based on the following arguments, there is no reason to have this path on OSM:
There are many strava traces in the region, but only 2-3 traces decided to take this path
There is no visible path from the aerial images nor from the 3D model (SWISSALTI3D)
This is a grass field which can be anyway crossed in multiple ways as we see on the strava heatmap
There is no official source indicating a path there (Swisstopo)
I hiked there and crossed this “path” without seeing any visible clue on the floor that there is a path
The creator of that path defends the opinion that there is a path, see details in the changeset:
Question: Since I don’t want to start an editing war, I want to ask your opinion before doing any edit. Does this qualify as a path?
One thing is sure. If this qualify as a path, one need to set the visibility tag to “horrible” and correct the sac_scale to T3.
Hi
Ich war vor wenigen Wochen da. Auch die letzten Jahre war ich öfters da. Wann warst du da und hast dich persönlich von dem Pfad oder nicht Pfad überzeugt?
Yes, I was there in the last days, crossed that path and didn’t see it.
There is indeed an old T3 path with barely visible markings in the region but it’s not along that path.
I don’t want to start a battle I saw a path vs I saw no path since it’s just words vs words. Just looking at the facts (in particular the strava heatmap, 3d model, aerial image, and given it goes as a straight line in a Geröll field) I’d argue we should not map this as a path.
I mean for sure one can walk there, but Strava heatmap shows that very few people took that route through the field
Wie ich sehe, habe ich das Interesse einiger geweckt.
Schwierigkeit T5 ist ein Versehen meinerseits und bereits geändert auf T3.
Wenn alle Pfade / Route, die selten begangen werden (Heatmap) oder schlecht zu erkennen sind, müssten ganz viele Einträge von dieser Karte verschwinden. Aber darum geht es gerade. Schwierige Routen / Verbindungen die Sinn ergeben und begehbar sind und begangen werden, gehören eingetragen.
Durch die Wiese, das stimmt, gibt es verschiedene gegangene Pfade. Ich habe den gewählt, der am besten Sichtbar ist.
Nun denn, Mein Eintrag wurde ohnehin bereits geändert.
I would disagree with that. If a route can be used, it’s not enough to qualify it as a path. See this post from @Woazboat
Additionally, I see you added a path here on (4). Yes, this is a possible, route. I also took a different route (3) and according to the heatmap someone also went on the route (1).
Wie so viele Sachen scheint dies nicht wirklich entscheidbar zu sein. Ich würde mich immer bevor ich im alpinen Gelände wohin laufe mich schlau machen. Zum Beispiel mit Routenbeschreibungen, denn sowas kann völlig harmlos sein aber eben auch nicht.
Tendenziell hät ich das höchstens als highway=scramble gemappt.
The route is definitely a difficult T5 that requires substantial scrambling. Even on Hikr they mention a Schlüsselstelle, which is illustrated here:
Edit: I’ve updated the path attribute to Scramble and removed the unused paths.
I’ve also added and tagged accordingly this disused section of path since there are some old route markers remaining : Way History: 1556663421 | OpenStreetMap
@Cello_Bello You reverted the changes that were discussed here in detail. Why don’t you first discuss it here before reverting the changes?
As mentioned before, the path that you re-added does not exist, I know the region, provided a photo of that part of the mountain and the absence of Strava traces doesn’t speak in favor of this path:
Also for this path, this is a T5 hike with II grade climbing that is scrambling and not hiking. I see you reverted it to hiking:
Finally this route is as documented above just a route that you took. I also took another route that is not on the map and don’t find it’s a sufficient reason to add it:
See also this quote from Woazboat (for the context it’s on that post) that shows a nice criteria to identify if something qualifies as a hiking path.
This is in addition to my previous post and the points already discussed above, concernig this trail that I added:
The trail below was surveyed, documented with Panoramax imagery, and the mapping decision was explained in both the note and the changeset. I also explicitly wrote:
“This path is intentionally marked as abandoned. Please do not delete.”
Despite this, @Cello_Bello, you deleted the way 3 days later.
Why was this deleted without first discussing it here, especially given that the mapping decision and the reason for keeping the way are explicitly documented?
It is very concerning that well-documented survey work is being deleted without a reason being provided or the matter being discussed first.
@Cello_Bello, could you please also respond to my last two comments?
I noticed that you’ve added several more paths on the mountain, but there is no source specified. Did you personally survey these paths, or are they based on aerial imagery or another source?
For example this one:
If you did survey them, what criteria are you using to decide which traces should be mapped as highway=path? There are many other faint tracks on the mountain that could potentially be mapped in the same way. I’m wondering what distinguishes these paths from those other traces, particularly where some of them seem to end in otherwise pathless terrain.
I’ve corrected the map reverting the changes made by @Cello_Bello as I did survey the region and we haven’t received any explanation for his actions since 2 weeks.
All the changes are documented in this post and anyone is welcome to edit my changes if it’s a constructive edit, ideally sharing documenting their reasons for the edit.
EDIT: I also marked as “abandoned” the paths without source for which we didn’t receive any information from their author and added a link to this thread in the changeset.
Die Nachricht besagt, dass du nach dem Lesen einfach weitermachen kannst, es ist keine Sperre.
Es wäre aber gut, wenn du dich an der Diskussion beteiligst.
Disskusionen sind nicht immer zielführend und drehen sich oft nur im Luftleeren Raum. Vor allem nicht, wenn gewisse User sämtliche meiner Einträge ändern aber dennoch darüber reden “wollen”. Aber persönlich nie da waren.
Ich habe meinen Standpunkt bereits klar und deutlich dargestellt.
Sämtliche meiner Einträge habe ich persönlich kontrolliert und zwar vor Ort.
Vielleicht hältst Du Deinen Daumen auf andere User.
Kein Schweizer hier, aber auch oft weglos unterwegs (im Allgemeinverständnis des Ausdrucks). Mir sieht es sehr danach aus, dass es nichts gibt, das nicht als OSM path aufgefasst werden könnte, wo irgendwer je entlang gegangen ist. Ich persönlich erfasse meine “weglosen” Wanderungen nicht als Pfade in der Datenbank, auch wenn das durchaus im Rahmen wäre. Aber das bin eben nur ich, und andre sehen das halt anders: Weil, wenn dort kein Weg wäre, wie hätten sie oder irgendwer denn dort gehen können?
PS: Kleine Anekdote, von einem Ausflug mit einem Kumpel, auf dem wir im weglosen (im Allgemeinverständnis) Gelände permanent einander mit dem Zuruf “Steigspuren, hier gehts lang!” einander versicherten - so alà wir sind nicht in der Irre - hat einer irgendwann gesagt: Eh klar, aber dort, drei und fünf und zehn Meter weiter, da sind noch mehr von diesen “Steigen”
I disagree. Constructive discussions are an important part of OSM and sometimes necessary to resolve disagreements about mapping decisions.
I think it is legitimate to ask for clarification when a path I encountered while hiking appears to be supported only by one contributor’s account, without corroborating evidence on the ground. A simple assurance that the path exists is not necessarily sufficient when other evidence points in a different direction.
In this case, my edits were reverted and the path I documented using Panoramax imagery was deleted. I think it is reasonable to ask for an explanation rather than accept these changes that you did silently.
@Cello_Bello, could you please explain why you deleted the path I documented?
I’m also quite restrictive with adding shortcuts and pathless trails, unless it’s clear that adding this path path would substantially benefit other users. This appears also in line with this suggested approach which was upvoted:
My personal opinion is that many “pathless” paths can be identified just using common sense and one doesn’t need to map the whole mountain as a web. If there are not obvious and interesting for a few more alpinists, I find hikr a better support to record them than OSM.
