RfC Part 3: foot_scale=* (aims to describe global paths in a more helpful and informative scale than SAC)

General talk Tagging general discussion
, ,
1

Overview:

The current sac_scale has… issues. The value names are too specific (people tag easy trails in the alpine as alpine_hiking, mountain_hiking can easily occur outside of mountains) and it’s geared towards mountaineers vs normal hikers and recreational walkers (half the values involve some form of climbing). Outside of some European countries it’s not well known at all, so there’s not any real value from adopting it globally (it can and still should be used in those places alongside this scale) and it doesn’t attempt to cover non Alps concerns.

Take 1 is here: RFC: hiking_technique key (or a better name!) to describe movement on paths by hikers and then grew too long for people to catch up on.

Take 2 went in a different direction (more of a walking_scale) but had some great insight: RfC: New Key foot_scale=* ("now for something a bit recreational") - #108 by Hungerburg

This take 3 merges the two while keeping more to the spirit of the first and is fairly well finalized. I’ll toss it up on a wiki soon (hopefully) with example photos.

3

Value 0: casual_or_attentive_FIXME

foot_scale=casual_or_attentive_FIXME

This value would exist for data ported over from the existing sac_scale T1, as there’s no real way to tell if the path should be either casual or attentive.

Value 1: Casual

foot_scale=casual

Requires little to no attention to traverse, very accessible

The ground may not be entirely smooth and clear but it has few to no obstacles and is over flat or low angle terrain. If there are obstacles they are to be minor and/or have a large amount of space around them. These paths can often use imported materials for their surfaces (gravel or asphalt) but can also be on naturally occuring firm ground where traction is not an issue. The path must be wide enough for people to walk side by side and for people in opposing directions to go past each other without stepping off of the path. Steep drop offs must have a railing or some other means of protection.

Expectations:

  • Accessibility: In general anyone that can walk (even with some mobility issues) like those that need to use a walking aid, the very young and elderly, etc can safely traverse this terrain.
  • Focus: Little to no focus is needed, people can walk and talk and not pay much attention to the path surface.
  • Footwear: Almost all casual footwear will be adequate.

Roughly equivalent to local scales:Class 1 YDS, ~NFS Class 4-5 Trails, SAC T1 / Yellow, Austria Blue, CAI T, AWTGS Grades 1, PWS W1 & W2

Note: Casual walking paths that are wheelchair accessible should be tagged with wheelchair=yes.

Value 2: Attentive

foot_scale=attentive

Requires attention to traverse, but still relatively straightforward

These paths are generally are either narrow enough that people need to walk single file (and step off to pass), have steep unprotected drops offs along the side, or have modest yet impactful obstacles. Obstacles are generally ankle to knee high like roots or rocks - though these can almost always be avoided and it is possible to walk on an even or nearly even surface. The surface itself still provides decent traction regardless of obstacles, but you may need to pay attention in places especially if you are on a moderately angled slope.

Expectations:

  • Accessibility: People that need to use aids when walking, or have relatively minor issues that impact their mobility can have problems and need to move carefully, but should be able to safely traverse it.
  • Focus: People need to be attentive of obstacles or footing to avoid tripping or slipping, but can still split their attention to carry on a conversation.
  • Footwear: Sneakers or other casual footwear should be fine.

Roughly equivalent to local scales: Class 1 YDS, ~NFS Class 2-3 Trails, SAC T1 / Yellow, Austria Blue, CAI T, AWTGS Grades 2, PWS W1 & W2

Value 3: Surefooted

foot_scale=surefooted

More complex terrain that requires surefootedness to traverse

Where attentive path surfaces have obstacles that can largely be avoided, this terrain requires people to be able to move with balance and coordination (be surefooted) to maintain traction. It’s common to have to lift your legs high to step up onto an obstacle, or move from uneven obstacle to uneven obstacle like rocks or roots. It can also include moving through mud, wet clay, slick or loose surfaces, etc where the surface itself is essentially an obstacle due to poor traction. A path is also surefooted if it is obscured enough you can’t see where you are stepping, as you may need to react quickly if stepping onto an uneven or loose surface.

Expectations:

  • Accessibility: If someone has mobility or balance issues they may be unable to proceed safely or comfortably on this terrain. This can be very challenging to inexperienced hikers, but will be straightforward for mountaineers.
  • Focus: Attention will need to paid to footing for long stretches in places to avoid loss of traction or falling.
  • Footwear: This is more consequential. Lightweight but outdoorsy shoes like trail runners or approach shoes would be helpful, but sneakers should still work though more care might need to be taken. People with bad ankles or that lack experience may want traditional mid or high top boots.

Roughly equivalent to local scales: Class 1 YDS, NFS Class 1-3 Trails, SAC T2 / White-Red-White, Austria Red, CAI E, AWTGS Grade 3?, PWS T1-T2

Value 4: Hands for Assistance

Rougher terrain requires hands for balance, or to interact with obstacles

foot_scale=hands_for_assistance

The path surface that is uneven or steep enough that it’d be reasonable to expect people to require use of their hands or trekking poles to safely traverse it. Obstacles like larger talus or boulders where you need to put a hand on a piece here or there to support yourself, aid with balance, or move around it. You might be occasionally be pushing off or pulling up on obstacles, but you aren’t actually using them to scramble or climb and you aren’t searching for mulitple handholds in a row. Having to actively push through bushes or branches to proceed as opposed to just brushing them out of the way occasionally would also fall into this category.

Expectations:

  • Accessibility: You need a stronger sense of balance and coordination than on surefooted terrain. Being able to control your body’s momentum and be aware of your weight and how it is moving over obstacles is important.
  • Focus: Intense concentration is often necessary. The skill and experience to think a few steps ahead while focusing on the path is very helpful.
  • Footwear: At this point something with grippy soles meant for hiking is highly recommended. These can still be very lightweight for experiened individuals.

Roughly equivalent to local scales: Class 2 YDS, NFS Class 1-2 Trails, SAC T3 / White-Red-White, UAII 1, Austria Black, SWW White-red-white, CAI EE, AWTGS 3-4?, PWS T3-T4?, BMC Grade 0.5?

Value 5: Scrambling

More vertical terrain where hands are used to climb/scramble, but is simpler than technical climbing=*

foot_scale=scrambling

Obstacles: High angle obstacles that need to be “climbed” finding handholds and footholds and pulling oneself up, but are simpler than technical climbing=* which use of a rope and harness are expected. Feet are off the ground for more than a few moves, or there are repeated sections of short climbing.

Expectations:

  • Accessibility: You need to be able to pull up your body weight with upper body strength. While not considered “technical climbing” significant risk can be involved. Previous climbing or mountaineering experience is highly recommended.
  • Focus: Loss of focus can have lead to serious or fatal consequences.
  • Footwear: Something a bit technical is recommended. You’ll generally want something more traditional with “structure” or a lightweight shoe that conforms to the foot for better feel and independent use of foot muscles for control.

Roughly equivalent to local scales:: Class 3 YDS, Bouldering VB, NFS Class 1 Trails, SAC T4-5, UAII 2, Austria “Alpine Route”, CAI EE, AWTGS 4-6?, PWS T3-R?, BMC Grade 1-3

OSM Mapper Note: Some hiking systems overlap into technical climbing - SAC T6 regularly covers extended UIAA 2, YDS 4 goes into the lower range of Class 5, etc. These are far closer to technical climbing routes than recognizable paths that people can follow on foot, and are not appropriate for this scale.

Just marking a section of a path as a scramble is useful. More technically minded people can add on a local scale to help differentiate grades of scrambling - BMC, YDS, SAC, etc.

4 Likes
4

This is the last thing that I’m very unsure about. I can see this going a few different ways, each with their own merits and drawbacks:

  1. scramble covers all possibly applicable grades: YDS 3-4, SAC 4-6, etc.

This is simpler, but also puts what should arguably be climbing routes (and are treated as such more often than not) as “paths”. Many European countries won’t put T5-6 on maps, and a T6 “path” often has no visibility and consists of UIAA I to II terrain, which in my mind is less of a path than a route. I’m also coming at this from a western United States standpoint, which is no more or less valid than another. This does seem to line up with many international standards (Australia refuses to map it’s hardest level routes as paths, and many other European countries do as well).

  1. scramble only covers lower non-technical grades: YDS 3, SAC 4-5, etc.

This could be strange for some countries (UK, Austria, etc) that do show such routes on maps. There’s nothing to stop someone from tagging a climbing route as sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking in countries where that is the norm. That said it could be awkward in the UK, where there is a dedicated three grade scramble scale that would probably have the top value lopped off.

It’s pretty easy to argue that UIAA II isn’t really traveling “on foot” anymore.

  1. scramble could vary from 1-2 on a country (or regional basis)

Have scramble be a sort of “what is regionally considered a path that you scramble on”. I think the majority of places will fall into 1, at least for formal paths. Most informal paths that sections on the lower end of technical have poor enough visibility and/or are steep enough that a mapped line isn’t going to help you much if you can’t personally routefind from A to B anyways.

This makes the tag a bit more ambiguous, but I feel like having a local yds_scale, sac_scale, bmc_scale, etc alongside it for the technically minded folks that are interested in scrambling would balance that out.

  • 1 - lower scramble grades are path, higher that overlap climbing should fall under that key
  • 2 - all semi-technical and lower technical scrambles are paths
  • 3 - have this vary by region
0 voters
5

I’m putting down a vote for #1 with the caveat that foot_scale=scramble is unlimited for ways that are highway=path and that technical climbing should not be highway=path. If and only if a way is considered to be a non-technical hiking trail/path then foot_scale=scramble is the top of the the difficulty scale. If it ventures into technical climbing then a foot_scale=* value above foot_scale=scramble would be a troll tag and naive data consumers that don’t evaluate foot_scale=* would do a disservice to blindly render such ways the same as paths.

I would still support pulling out higher-difficulty scrambles into their own top-level tag key or value (e.g. highway=scramble or climbing=scramble), but in the other threads we’ve now documented many cases of common non-technical hiking routes that have scramble portions. The top key in foot_scale=* needs to cover the most difficult thing that would legitimately be tagged highway=path.

3 Likes
6

Congratulations @erutan for this result! I’ve not been able to rejoin the discussion after I went for a hike :slight_smile:
Maybe the Value 5 description needs a bit clearer wording: reading “Feet are off the ground” and “You need to be able to pull up your body weight with upper body strength” makes me imagine one is required to pull oneself up by the arms only, like when using a pull up bar. I think what is meant is that the strength of both arms and legs (but mainly legs) is needed for this scale?

I suppose it has also been discussed how to implement this new key. Can you summarise it? Will this key replace the old sac_scale key? By automated replacement of sac_scale=hiking with foot_scale=casual_or_attentive_FIXME, etc.? Maybe Switzerland needs a special treatment: there will be many cases where paths there are tagged with sac_scale=* because that’s what they have been judged to be by the SAC itself. So paths in Switzerland could have both a foot_scale=* tag added by an OSM mapper and a (verifiable!) sac_scale=* tag, now redefined as “hiking difficulty according to the SAC”.

2 Likes
7

That would make extensive routes across UIAA II terrain suitable for foot_scale, as it would top out much like sac_scale. Mind you: That covers scrambles over pathless terrain, in the colloquial sense of path.

8

Am I right that #1 in the text is #2 in the poll and #1 in the poll is #2 in the text?

9

That’s my personal instinct as well, but goes against some local customs on what a path is.

This is something I’ve talked about in the past, but I’m not sure it’s necessary (and it tends to be poorly received). SAC T6 is already well into climbing=* as it covers UIAA I-II. SAC T4 can often occur in legitimate paths. T5 is a bit of an unknown to me and might straddle the line? It’d seem weird to make a scale with just this one value in it, or if BMC 1 was in foot_scale but BMC 3 was in scramble - but I also feel like there’s difference between a simple scramble that someone can naively do relatively safely and one that requires experience and technique.

YDS 4 gets into YDS 5.4 to 5.5 (lol), so I think that can get put into climbing=* as well.

This to me is the issue - should OSM consider the lower end of technical climbing on a route with little to no visual distinctions on it as a “path” because of a few European countries? Option 3 was created as a way around this issue.

The text of the wiki for highway=path would seem to indicate to me that pathless paths that require technical climbing are outside of it’s scope.

highway=path indicates a generic path that is used by pedestrians, small vehicles like bicycles, for animal riding or livestock walking. This includes walking and hiking trails, bike paths, horse and stock trails, mountain bike trails, as well as multi-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians or similar combinations.

10

Yeah I’ll take a look at that. It was meant to distinguish from just needing to mantle over a ~waist high obstacle etc. Moving from handhold to handhold is probably another useful way to phrase it.

Take a look at this comment here by @osmuser63783 and my response: RfC: New Key foot_scale=* ("now for something a bit recreational") - #115 by osmuser63783

It’s not a 1:1 clean mapping, but in general SAC T1 should be casual or attentive, T2 surefooted, T3 hands for assistance (some overlap into light T4), T4-T5 scrambling, T6 no longer a foot path (potentially). There’d need to be a verify tag, but I feel this would be a good starting point and foot_scale is more intuitive globally. No more easy single track trails in commonwealth countries tagged as being alpine_hiking because they’re above treeline. sac_scale gets misused a lot on OSM, so I imagine even with mapping mismatches you’d have a lot of bad data just from the input side.

foot_scale can exist alongside other local scales - renderers can choose to implement what they want. Especially in scrambling this becomes important, I can see YDS, BMC, SAC, etc being used to differentiate sub grades of a scramble which aren’t appropriate for 99.9% of recreational users and would be best kept to local norms anyways. Having some sort of tag that an agency has rated something seems like a very useful idea.

I’m more of a hiker than a hardcore OSM editor, so other people are better suited to discuss the details of porting data over. There’s a decent argument to be made that (globally) sac_scale is an inconsistent mess and it might not be worth porting as there’d be a lot of misinformation.

11

NOTE NEW POLL

Same choices, just in a consistent order in case that threw people off. :slight_smile:

This is the last thing that I’m very unsure about. I can see this going a few different ways, each with their own merits and drawbacks:

  1. scramble covers all possibly applicable grades: YDS 3-4, SAC 4-6, etc.

This is simpler, but also puts what should arguably be climbing routes (and are treated as such more often than not) as “paths”. Many European countries won’t put T5-6 on maps, and a T6 “path” often has no visibility and consists of UIAA I to II terrain, which in my mind is less of a path than a route. I’m also coming at this from a western United States standpoint, which is no more or less valid than another. This does seem to line up with many international standards (Australia refuses to map it’s hardest level routes as paths, and many other European countries do as well).

  1. scramble only covers lower non-technical grades: YDS 3, SAC 4-5, etc.

This could be strange for some countries (UK, Austria, etc) that do show such routes on maps. There’s nothing to stop someone from tagging a climbing route as sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking in countries where that is the norm. That said it could be awkward in the UK, where there is a dedicated three grade scramble scale that would probably have the top value lopped off.

It’s pretty easy to argue that UIAA II isn’t really traveling “on foot” anymore.

  1. scramble could vary from 1-2 on a country (or regional basis)

Have scramble be a sort of “what is regionally considered a path that you scramble on”. I think the majority of places will fall into 1, at least for formal paths. Most informal paths that sections on the lower end of technical have poor enough visibility and/or are steep enough that a mapped line isn’t going to help you much if you can’t personally routefind from A to B anyways.

This makes the tag a bit more ambiguous, but I feel like having a local yds_scale, sac_scale, bmc_scale, etc alongside it for the technically minded folks that are interested in scrambling would balance that out.

  • 1 - all semi-technical and lower technical scrambles are paths (current OSM stance)
  • 2 - lower scramble grades are paths, higher ones that overlap into technical climbing should fall under climbing=* or another key
  • 3 - have this vary by region (mostly 2, a few significant outliers for 1)
0 voters
12

How about the following for the main description of scrambling?

Large obstacles or slopes that are steep enough they need to be “climbed” using all four limbs but are simpler than technical climbing=* in which use of safety equipment like a rope and harness are recommended. Hand and footholds should be useable without having to know advanced techniques, obvious, and sturdy. Your feet are off of level ground and you need to move from handhold to handhold for an extended period of time.

and

  • Accessibility: You need to be use significant upper body strength to along with your legs to climb upwards. While not considered “technical climbing” significant risk can be involved. Previous climbing or mountaineering experience is highly recommended.

I’m tempted to call it simple_climbing or something if we do end up capping it before YDS 4, SAC T6, and BMC 3, etc since scrambling generally encompasses a wider range of terrain and technique.

1 Like
13

This is realistically mostly likely how the tag will end up getting used, regardless of how it is initially defined.

2 Likes
14

That’s something I also thought of (I personally prefer option 2 of the new poll, but I feel 3 is probably more realistic). If people in the UK consider a scramble to be up to BMC 3, it makes sense to have it go to there vs stopping it at 2 because it crosses into more technical terrain at the time.

Some countries do consider pathless low end technical climbing routes paths.

There is a genuine concern about being able to differentiate between simpler and more complex scrambles - I feel this is best done at the local level. Don’t make someone in the Alps use BMC and don’t make someone in Scotland use SAC. This requires some local key on top of foot_scale=scramble, and that key will be more opaque to casual users, but makes far more sense to me than another OSM level etc trying to make a global standard for terrain that’s already pretty well covered. It’s also not unusual for some informal paths to get into this low end of technical scrambling in some places.

Going back to a “here be dragons, do some research” seems perfectly fine to me honestly. Most scrambles involve a level of risk not present at lower levels.

1 Like
15

I’m happy with the texts you propose.

That would be better; I think “scramble” is a word that may be hard to translate without a change in meaning (Google translating it to the languages I know and then back to English usually results in “climbing” (i.e. it lost its meaning of “simple climbing”).

I think we should also include a few words on when to use it and when to use smoothness. Maybe:

Although mostly meant for wheeled vehicles, paths can also be tagged with smoothness=*. It is recommended to tag paths that are meant for short walks (to reach a destination, for short strolls) with smoothness=* (in urban environments, parks, etc.) and to use foot_scale=* for paths that are meant for longer (several hours) recreational walks in the countryside, hills and mountains.

16

Yeah simple_climbing is sort of me deciphering/unpacking what scrambling means. :slight_smile:

One issue I see is keeping foot_scale limited to lower scramble grades means that we either:

1 - new scramble key/value

the new scramble key (or higheway type) with a very range narrow values between foot_scale=* and climbing=*. I’d almost be tempted to have it just be a simple scramble=yes or something then have yds_scale=*, sac_scale=*, bmc_scale=* etc included alongside it.

This also gets weird where for example BMC 1 and 2 are in foot_scale but BMC 3 in in scramble - someone in the UK won’t consider that intuitive. I think that can be documented and makes logical sense, but might not be followed in reality.

2 - push all higher scrambles into climbing=*

I feel like this is cleaner and probably more accurate, but in many places a bmc_scale=3 or sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking isn’t thought of as technical climbing though it clearly falls into that range. I think calling UIAA 2 / YDS 5.4 hiking or walking is a bit absurd, but that’s my take from a different country.

If I do a short stretch of semi-technical scrambling while off trail I still consider myself “on foot” despite the increase in difficulty and technique, and I’m not even used to thinking of low Class 5 YDS as hiking.

I’m not sure about that.

If someone was looking at a short walking path in an urban park I think the distinction between casual and attentive is useful enough for most people to decide what to wear or who to bring along on it with them (or if they’d want to bring poles or a cane or whatever).

I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, someone can tag both. IMO smoothness often isn’t very useful for foot traffic - one of the intermediate examples has potholes (which can be walked around) and washboarding (which can’t) as the same smoothness level.

17

I just though that mappers might be wondering whether to tag a path with smoothness or foot_scale. smoothness is a little more detailed: for a roller skater the difference between excellent and good is relevant, for a pedestrian it isn’t (both are foot_scale=casual) so for an asphalt path in a park it’s more relevant to tag it with smoothness. A hiking trail in the mountains is not likely to be used by wheels (except mountain bikes, for which there is mtb_scale) so foot_scale is more relevant. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive: there must be many paths where both are relevant.

Both are foot_scale=attentive :slight_smile: (you need attention to safely walk around the potholes)

1 Like
18

I was recently on a trail that was mostly attentive with perhaps 5% surefooted - it was a double black diamond for MTB (it was a multi-use path). Two people in their mid to late 60s were comfortable hiking on it (I’d just tag it as surefooted since there’s enough spots you can’t really get anywhere interesting sticking to purely attentive). In this case having both a mtb_scale and foot_scale (along with any other tags) would make sense to me. :slight_smile:

Yeah paths with a very poor smoothness rating can still be simple on foot. Having a shin high rock in the middle of tha path that you have to walk around is still just foot_scale=attentive even though it’s smoothness=impassible (though it’d still be pretty simple to ride around on a bicycle). I think even for shorter urban paths having a foot_scale is useful as it tries to be a bit more holistic about the experience on foot.

19

Mind you, it is DE:Key:mtb:scale - OpenStreetMap Wiki - While I am all but certain there is anything meaningful for me to contribute here, yet, this lately crossed my mind foot:scale. (Remember, I was arguing for foot:scale=0 - i.e. casual² - this value exists in mtb:scale :slight_smile: but the community digressed.)

20

The same thing would apply when you have a nice smooth path with a set of steps in it - you have to briefly concentrate on walking up (or down) them.

21

This is meant for highway=path - highway=steps already exists to show that steps exist and alert people to that fact.

I suppose a very steep set of (uneven?) stairs could be hands_for_assistance, and a very broad set with shallow steps could be attentive etc but that can be for another thread if someone wants to take up the scale for highway=steps :slight_smile: