RfC: New Key foot_scale=* ("now for something a bit recreational")

[osmuser63783]

I’ve added a set of pictures, but I also have a more general question for all of you: the original idea for this key was that it could be used as a more fine-grained description than sac_scale (and at the same time more globally applicable). The criticism of sac_scale was that it combines too many attributes into one: technique / terrain, exposure, slope, recommended footwear… foot_scale was meant to only cover how “technical” a walk is, with other attributes that make a path or hike difficult (e.g. exposure) covered separate keys.

@erutan

By focusing solely on technique / mode of travel, we clarify a lot of ambiguity. A trail doesn’t need to have a “steady ascent’ ala SAC T2 just the “some sure-footedness” aspect … We likewise clear up ambiguity if there is a trail with a T1 technique and T3 exposure etc, as a simple smooth single track dirt trail here will not be tagged as use_of_hands because it happens to be near a cliffside and feels exposed.

More recent descriptions sounds a little different:

@Hungerburg

For most purposes this attribute can do more in less: obstacle=rocks e.g. cannot set apart attentive_walking from surefooted_walking.

@weeklyOSM

The intention is to simplify the representation of path attributes, consolidating various existing keys like surface and obstacle into a more straightforward scale.

Are we still trying to make sure that the value only describes technique, and that, for example, exposure doesn’t factor into the foot_scale rating? If so, then we should try to find some pictures of paths/tracks/steps/… that are very exposed but casual_walking - if you can manage to ignore the huge cliff next to you - and the opposite, ones where you have to use your hands so much they are not_walkable even though they are not exposed at all.