Recently I tagged patrolled=no on a skiroute. Few days later a note appeared, contents not verbally: This tag not understood by consumers, rather remove the skiroute.
Today skiers caused an avalanche on this route. Very likely people not in need of openstreetmap to find the route. Nobody got harmed. Still the question, raised in the note: How are consumers expected to handle that tag?
BTW: I also did add informal=yes to said route, as there are no signs on the ground, just people out for a fun adventure happening to pass by there.
Sounds for me like the similar “issue” of paths with access-no in National Parks and I would apply the same “solution”. The information is in OSM, it’s up to the data consumer to use it or not.
The specifics would depend on the country/place, but I don’t think they are directly linked.
I’d expect patrolling=yes to mean that a patroller would alert rescue services when needed. Even if alerted, rescue services will not come if it’s dangerous for them to do so.
The route is quite well known. It does not need signs. It does not need openstreetmap. It is not possible to un-map it. I though went with the note and used prefix informal: - I did that after some skiers caused an avalanche by riding that route that day. The effect of which was, that the signed routes in the resort were closed for the day. (So the gondola could prohibit carrying skis.)
Every morning, the avalanche commission looks at the area, when considered safe from afar, ride it to get a closer look, and when considered fine for the general public, the route is signed open. When considered bad, it is signed closed and sooner or later explosives will detonate to mitigate the dangers, where available.
In my part of the world there are some areas with backcountry ski patrol groups. Usually they are volunteers with the local land management agency. It is not feasible for them to cover all the terrain they may do rescues in a regular way or on periodic schedule. Generally there are some routes that are fairly popular that they will travel over periodically. Those routes are “patrolled”. The routes that they don’t usually travel over would be considered “unpatrolled” or patrolled=no. If you or someone in your party needs assistance and you are on an unpatrolled route you will need to have some way to summon help (mobile phones typically don’t work well in the mountains around her, so probably satellite messaging). If you are on a route that is patrolled, then you will likely have a patroller come along eventually though the wait may be a long time.
Likewise, if you are at a developed alpine/downhill ski area there might be off piste areas that are unpatrolled. Here the requirements vary somewhat but often you must exit the patrolled areas at specific locations which are signed and you might have to show you have completed some educational requirements about backcountry hazards. Those exit points may will have signage indicating the area is not patrolled.
In neither of the above cases would the unpatrolled routes or areas be illegal to access so access=no does not apply.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. From that I guess in my area, there are no patrolled=yes pistes, whatever grooming. And certainly not in areas with no cell-coverage. Will ask around a bit. Personally I only know this from swimming pools with lifeguards. I am well aware of signs “You are about to leave the secured ski slope area” where e.g. a track road crosses a downhill piste, no border control there though.