I see… it sounds pretty detailed and fine-grained, but shouldn’t the whole ‘pathless’ concept be sorted out first?
I know that from my own ramblings. Some ways not travelled by the multitude, so traces faint. I miss a turn because the straight line looks like a path only to find myself in the pathless. When backtracking a few metres, I then see where I went astray.
Usually, I’d say, documentation set in stone, but this one change would make the article match my personal opinion on subject matter much better than what is there now.
1 Like
Ok, I was bold and moved the image in question to intermediate: Key:trail_visibility - OpenStreetMap Wiki
1 Like
Thanks but to be honest I would prefer removing it: an image that only makes sense if you read the image description, which can only be found by clicking on it, is always going to be worse than one where you can just look at the image and see a trail with intermediate visibility.
I will not revert if you remove it, so be bold and go ahead :-D. I added the note that the path is not visible to the wiki table so that it is more obvious (in case you remove the image, also remove that note :-)).
Ah, sorry, I didn’t spot your note. I’ll remove it anyway if you don’t mind
1 Like
For sure not, go ahead!
But the intention of @extremecarver was just this: To show a path with good visibility, because from where the photo was taken (if you know where you want to get to, a.k.a. Basic sense of direction, map recommended) the continuation was not more than 50m away, and therefore trail_visibility=good.
Nevertheless, I am happy with the picture removed. May spare some dispute with mappers that read the wiki to the letter and do not care about local conventions manifesting in hundreds of mappings in the vicinity. Nobody tags good where 50m gaps.
Still, I think the description of trail_visibility=good means that the path must be visible at all times, just possibly faintly.
No, look at the sac_scale pictures (You dislike them, I think they are very good), this where trail_visibility was split off: Starting from mountain_hiking no path (or pathway BTW.) visible in them.
Said that, I think most people parse the key space as you do. And that is fine, regardless of true to the letter.
Hm, the 2023 SAC update says T2=“Sentier avec tracé continu.” and T3=“Sentier pas forcément visible en continu.” (sorry, I do not speak German). Meaning for T2, the trail has to be continuous. (for T3, the trail is not necessearily visible or continuous). So if trail_visibility is “translated” from the official SAC scale, it actually proves my point 
.
Well, all the better. The openstreetmap sac_scale was based on an older version of the SAC® scale, but times are a changing and I am all for going along!
PS: Did you notice, they also removed any mention of footwear. Something that I tried to yank from the OSM Wiki but it keeps reoccurring…
1 Like
Yeah, I go in running shoes everywhere :-D.
2 Likes
Where there is a path, Sandals mostly fine with me. Where pathless, less so. For me, if a ramble is pathless or not much more important than technical difficulty.
Trail_visibility is not a good measure though: If the values read “TV=paved_path|trodden_path|bootprints|pathless” all my needs would be served, but it is not so.
UPDATE: Because obviously the documented values for trail_visibility where not taken from subject matter but instead from generic grading based on some dictionary terms.
What language, what country? I have hiked for a long time, and live in a mountainous area & I’ve never heard that term.
2 Likes
In German it is Steigspuren - it means, when looking at the ground one sees that people walked there, but not enough to form a path (Steig in German). I read the term bootprints here in one of the topics raised by @erutan who used it in much that way, at least as I understood it. I cannot find that post now.
PS: In German there is also verb “Steigen” which means going upwards. Mountaineering is called “Bergsteigen”. Stairs are called “Stiege”, no idea though if related.
I’m glad with the way the trail_visibility is developing: it’s almost where I tried it to get with this thread Tag trail_visibility: Proposed Improvements for this Descriptive Tag Now clarify that “marker” means any clue as to where the trail is (cairns, missing undergrowth, lane through forest, etc.) not just trail markers, and change “sometimes has to be searched for” to “sometimes needs attention” and I’ll be 100% happy.
1 Like
Here a picture of what on the ground I’d call Steigspuren/bootprints (lacking a more well known English term):
I guess, in openstreetmap that would make the path there “trail_visibility=bad|horrible”?
That’s called a “track”, but unfortunately that word is already taken by a less-than-intuitively defined tag. 
2 Likes
In some varieties of English. You’d cause nothing but confusion in Ireland if you called that a track. (Yes, it know it works the other direction too - the OSM concept of track is equally confusing for some varieties of English).
1 Like