Mapping bouldering routes

[InsertUser]

@Peter_Elderson

how about (existing tags) leisure=track & sport=climbing & climbing=boulder ?

Please don’t use leisure=track for this, they don’t sound remotely track-like.

[StC]

@Peter_Elderson

How do people know what the next boulder is and how to get there?

They just know More seriously, either they are equipped with a map or a guide, or they scan the surroundings for the next route/problem (which sometimes is on another side of the same boulder).

@Peter_Elderson

Is there a particular order in which people have to clear the boulders?

The routes/problems are often numbered. But of course nobody prevents you from skipping a number that you have been unable to clear.

@Peter_Elderson

Do they have e.g. maps showing where the boulders are and which difficulty these have?
Do people get a list somewhere with e.g. easy, challenging, expert boulder sets?
Do people make up their own list and route?

Firstly, maybe I was not clear about this: there are arrows and numbers painted on the stone, and sometimes (rarely) on trees to help you locate the next boulder. Then you have maps, gathered in guides that give all the details. Today, websites such as bleau.info and thecrag.com are taking over.

Routes are designed by people. I mean, it is more individual than hiking routes: you can often find the name of the person who has designed and painted the route. Still, they are as normalized, known and documented as a GR.

[osmuser63783]

Have a look at how this area has been mapped.

You don’t necessarily need a relation, you could just map the boulder as natural=stone sport=climbing climbing=boulder (or climbing:boulder=yes) and put the number into ref.

This mirrors, for example, how golf courses are mapped (with golf=hole and the number in ref).

Disclaimer, I’m only familiar with ‘bouldering’ indoors. Just reporting what I see on Taginfo and Overpass.

[Duja]

I would argue that this is a good use of relation:site – this is a group of related, numbered objects, but not otherwise strongly connected by a route or another geometry.

Now, the fact that site relations are poorly supported by the existing code stack (Nominatim included, IIRC) is a different issue…

[StC]

@Duja

not otherwise strongly connected by a route or another geom

Chicken and egg, I would say. The objects define the route, and they are connected by it. Same as cairns defining a route in a mountainous area, and same as a way (if you push the reasoning to its limits): the geometry is defined in part by the points, in part by interpolation and extrapolation.

[osmuser63783]

@StC

I’d relate this to the routes that are created with cairns in rocky areas: you follow a route without following a path.

This question has interesting parallels to a recent discussion about how to map exactly such hiking routes, that are best described as a series of waypoints but without an obvious path between them.

RfC: Have pathless hiking routes (no trail_visibility) be some manner of related nodes instead of paths

Overview & Issue: There’s a number of paths that are… shockingly straight lines that completely ignore contours. I haven’t been on all of them, but I’ve been on some and they feel much more like a route in the western US sense of the term - a cross country path (think Roper or Skurka) where users are expected to use their own discretion routefinding but make their way from described locations or waypoints to the next ones. Drawing lines in between widely spaced nodes to make a path is a poor ex…

(No clear solution has been found so far)

[Peter_Elderson]

@osmuser63783

This question has interesting parallels to a recent discussion about how to map exactly such hiking routes, that are best described as a series of waypoints but without an obvious path between them.

The interesting difference is that such a hiking route defines the waypoints and the order in which to pass them, just not the exact itinerary between each two “mandatory” waypoints, while this boulder forest does not prescribe which of the waypoints to visit. If there are clear routes indicated by signs such as “John’s adventure” guiding climbers along John’s pick of the boulders, then you have an OSM-route. If the exact path between some numbered boulders on John’s Adventure is not indicated, just the general direction, then you have a comparable situation to the “find your own path” situation.

If there are cairns on this way, which are a type of waymarks, that would make it a regular route, telling the user where to walk.

If the boulders all had arrows pointing to the adjacent boulders, that would make it a Node Network. We have discussed how this could be mapped as a Node Network, even if the exact itineraries between the Nodes are not prescribed. The Node2Node route relations would then simply contain no ways. Then you have the Network, with DIY itineraries in between. Node Network routing applications could learn how to handle the unknown Node2Node routes, e.g. by connecting the Nodes visually with vaguish meander lines, which act as stubs for the missing ways.
Which could be a generic solution for other situations, e.g. when a route has been interrupted without a known alternative (happens a lot!): the traveler has to find a connection at the spot, and the planner app shows it when planning the trip.

[harahu]

@StC

The routes/problems are often numbered. But of course nobody prevents you from skipping a number that you have been unable to clear.

This is a question of climbing ethics. Nobody will physically stop you from skipping a numbered problem, but whether you have then completed the circuit will be brought into question.

Think of it as a marathon route. It might be physically possible to take a shortcut, but do you then have a claim to having run the route?

[StC]

I propose not to encode climbing ethics into OSM maps. I do not see myself adding tags such as “start=sitting”

[StC]

@osmuser63783

This question has interesting parallels to a recent discussion about how to map exactly such hiking routes, that are best described as a series of waypoints but without an obvious path between them.

Exactly. That is exactly why I proposed that we go to Fontainebleau last week-end, in all honesty: so as to explore these issues practically.

[StC]

@osmuser63783

(No clear solution has been found so far)

Maybe I have one to propose. It consists in acknowledging that the core concept is routability (by humans in the field, then by algorithms on the map) and that different object types involve different routing methods. This can apply to OSM ways as much as to OSM relations:

• ways with highway=* involve the most usual routing method: straight lines between points;
• relations with route=* involve a derived routing method: routing through successive ways in the relation;
• actual or hypothetical other relations can involve other routing methods, mostly based on nodes in the relation: a ferry route, a route made of cairns, a climbing circuit, etc;
• we could even apply it to new types of ways defined with very few points, e.g. a beach crossing, a scramble.

In that context, a climbing circuit would be a route made of only key points (the bouldering problems) and it is up to the data user to decide how to render it

[BaboucheVerte]

Disclaimer, I’m a (bad ) climber.

what is the exact meaning of climbing=boulder? is it “this is a boulder”? or “this is a climbing route (a problem) on a boulder?”

For me, climbing=boulder, as it is a subkey of sport=climbing, means “a climbing route on a boulder, where you don’t need any specific climbing equipment, just climbing shoes and crashpad, as the max height is ~4-5m”. It is both used for artificial inddor climbing (see) or natural outdoor climbing. We have the same confusion in french between the stone and the climbing on the stone, we use the same word : bloc.

If it’s one path or a few paths along the numbered boulders, how about (existing tags) leisure=track & sport=climbing & climbing=boulder ?

At least in Fontainebleau, the boulder circuit is a succession of boulder (natural=stone) with one or more climbing=boulder on it. each climbing=boulder has a cotation, a name, and a ref prior to this circuit. A circuit has a name, a min/mean/max cotation, and an (ordered) list of climbing=boulder. But he path linking the climbing=boulder is either informal, or non-existant. Most of the time there are no paths.

Are there designated, maybe even waymarked / signposted paths between the boulders that tell you how to get from one problem to the next?

Never saw one. The only thinh you have, is at most a number/color at the start of the climbing=boulder.

How do people know what the next boulder is and how to get there?

Written on a (paper) topo, and soon in OSM. But most of the time, you just have to open your eyes ;(

Is there a particular order in which people have to clear the boulders?
Do they have e.g. maps showing where the boulders are and which difficulty these have?
Do people get a list somewhere with e.g. easy, challenging, expert boulder sets?

Yes, the topo describes the succession of the climbing=boulder, with each difficulty and name.

So finally, I would map a bouldering route as a relation type=route + route=climbing + climbing=boulder + eventually name= + `` + color= + climbing:grade:french:min/max=*. And the element of the relation beeing POI with sport=climbing + climbing=boulder + climbing:grade:french=* + name= + ref= + any external ref on topo.

Beware to not confuse with climbing=route which describe a (long) classic climbing route with a route_bottom, route_top, and (a lot of) bolts.

[Peter_Elderson]

@StC

In that context, a climbing circuit would be a route made of only key points (the bouldering problems) and it is up to the data user to decide how to render it

This is exactly what happens if you just map the boulders as nodes.

[Peter_Elderson]

@BaboucheVerte

Written on a (paper) topo,

That’s no ground truth at all for any route there. Only the boulders, which can of course be mapped as such.

[StC]

@Peter_Elderson

That’s no ground truth at all for any route there. Only the boulders, which can of course be mapped as such.

This is exactly the same ground truth as for hiking routes : random paint signs that you must manage to follow using your eyes.

[SK53]

@dieterdreist

in some occasions this is for facilities set up for “bouldering” (climbing without protection thus without going higher than a few meters, typically 4m)

Not sure this is a useful functional definition in terms of height. I think El Capitan has been climbed solo without protection, and originally this was a multi-day climb. I believe some free soloers (Ron Fawcett comes to mind) may jump off climbs from a considerable height (20 m) if thwarted: a controlled jump is safer than an uncontrolled fall. Wikipedia separates out bouldering, highball bouldering and free solo climbing, with 4 m being roughly separation between first two, and 20 m between the last two.

Also in the case of Fontainebleau the boulders are just in the forest, so no-one has set up facilities. A climbing wall as in the first example is just that and although the climbing style is bouldering it is still a climbing wall. I would presume the wall does not provide a way of protecting the climb with a top rope: for artificial facilities this might be better expressed with an explicit tag.

@StC

So you rather favor “this is a bouldering problem” over “this is a boulder”, right? If yes, maybe we need to adjust the wiki to clarify this.

I think the climbing wall example above illustrates the issue quite well: I think separating the two notions is less important for Fontainebleau, but significant for other bouldering locations, and especially the small unattended climbing wall type.

In the UK whether someone adopts a bouldering approach to a climb or uses traditional protection may largely depend on ability. Somewhere like Stanage may have a wide-range of abilities, climbing styles etc within a short span of rock. I think therefore climbing styles is actually a better approach.

I think a route of bouldering problems is very similar to a fitness course with the difference being that instead of a fitness station there is a bouldering problem at each station. I would therefore adapt the ideas and documentation of route=fitness_trail to something like route=bouldering_trail), and this would also favour nodes for the base of each bouldering route.

[BaboucheVerte]

That’s no ground truth at all for any route there. Only the boulders, which can of course be mapped as such.

Disagree, there is one “ground truth”. Usually, each climbing=boulder of a given route will be painted at the begining of the boulder with a number, painted in a color than define the difficulty of the route. So, just with the ground, you can go from n°1 blue to n°x blue, and you’ll do the “blue circuit of the massif taratata”

[BaboucheVerte]

I think therefore climbing styles is actually a better approach

I do agree, but is there a difference between (climbing:boulder=yes + other value to no) and climbing=boulder ?

I think a route of bouldering problems is very similar to a fitness course with the difference being that instead of a fitness station there is a bouldering problem at each station. I would therefore adapt the ideas and documentation of route=fitness_trail to something like route=bouldering_trail), and this would also favour nodes for the base of each bouldering route.

Totally agree; except fot a fitness course, you have proper path between fitness station no ?

[StC]

@BaboucheVerte

Totally agree; except fot a fitness course, you have proper path between fitness station no ?

Yes, there are things that we need to adapt. Not sure we need roles, for instance. I would not call it a trail either. But the general principe is the same.

[Peter_Elderson]

@StC

hiking routes : random paint signs

Not random: they are placed in view, especially at turns, in a specific manner to indicate the pre-destined route, and the symbols are route- (or network-)specific. Together they form a specific fixed route.