My point is, every mapper has a certain skill set on hiking/cycling/… and categorizes the way based on that skill set.
For example:
I would strongly disagree with you that cycling requires compacted or paved. At the same time I might be more conservative while categorizing difficult hiking trails than you are. The more objective we describe the way, the better a map can display the world for their intended users.
I believe we have such categories and “ways” requiring “help by equipment” are no highway=path but rather sports=climbing or highway=via_ferrata and you are right, then they do not appear on OSMcarto.
Sure, let’s call it hiking_scale. That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. If you want to classify hiking path, keep in that section and focus on how to rate ways for hikers. If sac_scale is too difficult for normal mappers, create something with similar content but easier to understand.
highway=path is usually interpreted by routers as a mixed-use path for non-motorized traffic, implying foot=yes + bicycle=yes + horse=yes rather than a broad access=yes for all traffic types.
That is when I dropped interim stewardship of foot_scale, when practically all of the contributors obviously only were after that, sac_scale without SAC. As personally, I am fine with sac_scale, it has it warts and results hard to determine an exact grade when questioning several people. Trying to separate out use-of-hands (more than two legs) necessary from highway=path I learned, the OSM community wants more than mapper statements, perhaps e.g. Rolltuhltauglicher Wanderweg devices with a number of sensors to measure tilt/inclince/&c to differentiate grades? Of course, as @Adamant1 called for, observable from aerial.
What are the chances of resolving this by continuing to use the SAC scale as originally intended and adding the 0-grade for paths that are below that (like sidewalks in residential areas, for example)?
Although, I still believe that the 0-grade is already included in T1.
I am for creating a new pathway=* tag that includes everything under highway=path and possibly other tags like highway=footway, hwy=steps, hwy=bridleway and hwy=cycleway.
In the remaining months of 2024 we could decide what top-level tags pathway=* would support and give them proper names.
Then starting on January 1st 2025 start a transition period where this pathway=* tag acts as a secondary level tag to highway=* and coexists with it, and ending in December 31st 2029 (for example?) all paths with a pathway=* secondary tag have their top-level highway=* deleted, effectively turning pathway=* into a top-level tag along with highway=*. Any remaining highway=path without a pathway=* tag could become highway=unknown or pathway=unknown.
Then starting on January 1st 2030 all renderers and routers will be forced to have switched to supporting these tags (and they will have had 5 years to have done so)
I am for creating a new
pathway=*tag that includes everything underhighway=pathand possibly other tags likehighway=footway,hwy=steps,hwy=bridlewayandhwy=cycleway.
can you explain which problem you are trying to solve? Isn’t your solution the same we already have with th onl difference it would be including also steps?
I am just voicing my agreement with the idea 
No, scramble, pathless, trail, single_trail shared_use and possibly multi_use or motorcycleway would be included, so we would have a nice meaningful segmenization of the curren mess of paths.
There is no such mess in path, path requires you read secondary tags to get to the type of way. Your proposed categorization is not going to work out, as ways will fall into several of your descriptions at the same time.
A mtb trail is not much different to a hiking trail. The only difference might be in the legal usage. So how to tag such way, which is legally allowed to be by mtb and for pedestrians? From you posts I assume it’s not shared_use as you intend this to be like “flat, maintained” footway/cycleway.
How would you tag a way like below in your system?
Well, taginfo tells me most paths do not have secondary tags, so that is not working very well.
We already have blurry areas all over OSM and there are things that get tagged two ways and it does not seem to be a problem. I do not think slight overlap is an issue. We have that with roads (=for cars) as well.
From the Wikipedia (it is worth checking, really):
Many mountain bike riders prefer singletrack over other types of trails, as singletrack is usually designed specifically for the sport
I do not know the area, I do not know what way that way is usually used but just by the look of it, I would have pathway=trail (possibly wih sac_scale and mtb_scale). It does no seem to be purpose built for MTBs. But again, I am judging only from a picture. Most trails can be mountainbiked as along as they are sac_scale=hiking, I do not see any issue here.
I dabbled a bit into software engineering, that’s what its called: Software engineers like one more level of redirect. I understand this topic here as one less level of redirect. I sympathize with thatt. The details still in need to get worked out
I’d call this a leisure=track sport=mtb, in case it was a single-use trail. If it was a shared-use, path in order, appropriate sac_scale recommended if MTBers happen to care about pedestrians, that is.
That is just so wrong :-O. Wiki definition.
A dedicated track for running, cycling and other non-motorised racing such as horses, greyhounds, typically not a part of the normal network of ways and paths.
Edit.:PS, the definition in wikidata does not have the second part of the sentence. Hence the confusion.
What’s the reason for making this pathway= instead of path=? I find path more intuitive, as an example of iterative refinement.
Then we can build on the existing values of path=, for example path=trail (which could use some discussion and better documentation).
Linguistic. I am not a native speaker, (though I have a degree in English translation, ha:-D), so I might be wrong, but path sounds too much like a trail, especially in American English:
American English definition:
a way or track made by or for people walking on the ground, or a line along which something moves:
Pathway is in my undersanding more abstract so it can accomodate a wider selection of tags. It sounds weird to have scramble, pathless but also cycleway or shared_use under path but sounds more natural to have it underpathway. Though I just made a cursory search and there seems to be great confusion about the distinction; it might be regionally varied.
I would be interested in native speakers’ perspectives (from different parts of the world). However, I could live with path (though I am strongly for eventually deprecating highway=path and promoting either path= or pathway to primary tag).
We have them here, not a plenty, but both the tourist agencies and the local rambling club want there more of those. so every single use MTB Downhill race that has foot=no a prime candidate of loosing out of hihway=path after all? No need to create pathway=* primary tag therefore.
What do you mean? I do not get it.
Wow, that’s unexpected. What would be the tag if the picture would show a trail runner instead of a mtb? leisure=track+sport=trail_running and if the picture would have shown a heavy-loaded hiker pathway=trail?
Again, you need to be more open-minded. Your idea needs to work globally, not only in Austria or the Alps.
You could also see it the other way around: Mappers are fine with the level of detail which highway=path is offering. (not saying I’m fine with that 
)
