Still pondering of what the new value will bring: First notice, not only a new value, but what hiking covers got changed as well:
First question @supsup and of course the community here: How much incline is tolerable for strolling: E.g. 6% (a value commonly used for being still accessible by wheel chair), or something else? 20% perhaps? The extra pictures seem to suggest flat only (6% or so.)
I agree this is a weakness. I do agree that strolling does not need to be absolutely level and I think it is hard to give precise number, it is a combination of smoothness and incline. Very smooth surface could support a bigger incline then a slightly less smooth surface. In general I would say incline should be under 10 % or so.
T0 would probably better be defined as “Terrain level or (very) slightly inclined; no risk of falling or tripping over minor obstacles.” Strolling should not be steep, but “steep” is indeed vague.
I also agree, I am also not happy with the definition and distinction of strolling and hiking. I would argue to add to the strolling definition that it is usable with a rollator or wheel chair (so yes 6%). I think you one can judge quite well where rollators and wheelchairs can go. And it helps people which rely on rollators and wheelchairs to find only ways, which are suitable for them.
How would that differ from wheelchair=yes?
Rollator or wheelchair suitability would also be covered by sac_scale and there would be no need for an additional tag for walking or hiking trails.
The main thing is that, like Hungerburg, I have difficulties with the definition given to distinguish between T0 and T1 in practice. What is the tolerable gradient, since hardly any trail is completely 0% flat?
What were the background ideas of the author of the strolling proposal?
I am not sure most pictures voted on the proposal are accessibly to wheelchairs.
I don’t know what would be a good value for the maximum gradient. I’m open to suggestions, but probably 6%? Perhaps we can agree on a value and record this in the definition?
Maybe that such pathes as that in SAC Scale Bewertung Poll are not rated the easiest category.
Looking at the result of the poll I do see the need of an easier category: strolling.
This is for example 16° incline:
This is 10° incline (left path):
I used for both paths strolling, cause they are both walkable without obstacles and with crutches or strollers but it’s not a flat terrain.
The number six came from some (DIN) standards on accessibility. Those even allow ten percent for short sections (10cm on ramps/wedges?).
When sac_scale talks about terrain, I never know: do they mean the path or the surrounding terrain? Mind you, the pictures on the OSM wiki show no paths apart for the value hiking, all other grades go over pathless terrain; So likely, path and terrain synonymous.
My guess: When the sac_scale documentation talked about “slightly inclined terrain”, the path is meant. Otherwise, “falling hazards properly secured” would not mean much.
PS: Re-sharing Darum wurde die SAC-Wanderskala nach 20 Jahren überarbeitet has fresh SAC® pictures. I guess they support the single file language present since a recent change to the documentation, might be represented with width=* too? The hiking picture only presents slight incline.
I have noted this in the wiki. Seems to be a good guideline where you can still move well with strollers and crutches and there are apparently no objections to this.
I think it’s not necessary or even desirable to mention incline at all. Assuming sac_scale is used for hiking, users would use a map with contour lines from which incline can be deduced. So incline can be separated out of sac_scale. In practice, there will be a correlation between sac_scale and incline (higher sac_scale paths are often steeper, and vice versa), but I can imagine that there are sac_scale=strolling that are quite steep, just like there are sac_scale=alpine_hiking paths that have no incline.
Brouter has detailed hill shading, but the calculations use coarse SRTM. See BRouter web client
Distance down 185m altitude lost 16m. Maximum incline 13 to 15% in short sections. Watching people walk there, some visibly breath heavier than on flat terrain. “Steep” sections quite short, obviously even such modest incline requires a bit of effort: People obviously lean forward into the “hill”. Youngsters stroll down with ease.
If I fully understand, strolling was introduced to widen applicability of sac_scale and cover the desires of people that do not want to “hike” and do not use maps with contour lines and hill shading.
What I mean to say is that so far, the other sac_scale values do not take steepness into account, only technical difficulty and exposure. Maybe we should keep it that way also for the new value, and accept that “strolling” should sometimes not be taken literally. sac_scale is then like “smoothness for pedestrians”: only the roughness of the surface should be taken into account.
I’ve got the same point of view. There should be a recommandation (not a hard value) for a maximum incline. I wouldn’t see a way with an incline of 15% as “strolling” anymore. 10% for small sections could be tolerable.
I don’t see it that way. It should be taken more literally than that. It should really be pathes that are really easy to use without much effort.
What matters here is the definition of “effort”. So far it has been the effort of feet (and sometimes hands, arms, etc.) to cross the terrain safely, without taking the effort to gain or loose altitude into account.
Personally, I’d not fight against calling walking that section of St. James Way a stroll rather than a hike. Yet, I am neither a hiker nor a stroller; I myself can cope that modest incline decently. I just observe people walking, up or down.
BTW: I also observed sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking getting used above sac_scale=mountain_hiking to indicate steepness of paths in mappings, where I could not see any technical difficulties. But that is just what I observed in the past, way before openstreetmap decided to deviate from the source of what the tag originally wanted to convey and instead do its own thing. So yes, I think, steepness also played in back then.
I think that is a tagging mistake, and I would edit it to sac_scale=mountain_hiking if hands are not needed for balance.
It’s worse when someone maps a trail as sac_scale=hiking because there is no elevation change while it is actually hard-going. We hiked the Lycian Way in Turkey last weeks, and found long sections of coastal path that were quite hard (max. 2 km/h, constantly watching your footing) but were tagged as sac_scale=hiking. Some were as hard as this path A closer look at the rocky coastal path between Limanağzı and Boğazcık [503] [A4] – Trekopedia (which is correctly tagged with sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking).
Steepness of the terrain has always been a part of the specification. Sometimes these tags are used very unappropriately, using T5 for something that is T2-T3.
I do agree that steepness should not be a determining factor, I see it more as a circumstance. T4-T6 will rarely no be steep, unless you are traversing something very vertical horizontally.
Not sure how to go about it - I think the wiki is already well documented and that is how it should be done.
Rather than saying something like that can you instead say “which OSM tags” and “which OSM values” are used inappropriately, and what they are used inappropriately for. If you say “T5” to most people, even in OSM, they’ll probably just think that it is a type of Volvo car.
