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

[erutan]

@Hungerburg

I do not think any country in Europe shows T5 and T6 on printed maps, at least not knowingly of them being such

I thought in a previous thread you mentioned a few that did - and then others that didn’t.

I personally consider such terrain to be more “routes” than “paths” in the US climbing sense of the word.

@Adam_Franco

One or more new highway values could be created to cover scrambles, climbing route approaches/descents (which are often at this grade), and/or mountaineering routes. Such new highway values could be an appropriate base tags to use for ways with foot_scale=technical_scrambling.

I’m not opposed to this, but it seems like there isn’t an appetite for a new semi-technical highway type. IMO it’s at least as valuable as via_ferrata, but that’s from a more global viewpoint than a euro-centric one.

There also doesn’t seem to be any limit on highway=path stopping at semi-technical terrain, so we’d also need to edit that heavily used tag which seems to be a surefire way to kill something on OSM.

One honest alternative is to stop at foot_scale=simple_scrambling and then mention that YDS 4, SAC T5-6 should just fall into climbing=*. Both of those values fall into what climbing=* already covers (UIAA I-II, YDS 5.0-5.5).

@SomeoneElse

I don’t think that that is an achievable goal - just look at e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/556603351 up Mt Everest on the various map styles on osm.org and elsewhere.

@yvecai

If contributors really want to map this as a highway=path, what can we do? At least, chances are a new tag will be used by the overzealous among us.

Ice climbing has it’s own rating systems of course, but Tag:highway=path - OpenStreetMap Wiki indicates that T6 is applicable to it, so is that actually an improper use of the tag?

@Hungerburg

I’d also appreciate it such a new base would include no-path-finding-experience-by-looking-for-scatched-lichen-or-looking-20m-into-the-surroundings-to-find-the-continuation required.

This needs some refinement (and should be path_visibility) but was my initial attempt to not have 90%+ of trails just be excellent and put a higher bar on excellent vs just “well it’s adequate”.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-hiking-visibility-key-paired-with-hiking-technique-and-hiking-exposure-fall-risk-this-rounds-out-the-hiking-path-trinity/

@osmuser63783

An easy glacier crossing. No snow, just ice, flat or almost flat, but you do need crampons or mini-crampons/spikes. No exposure. Is this surefooted_walking because you don’t need your hands? For comparison, in sac_scale this would be T4. So it’s difficult but not because it requires scrambling, and that doesn’t really fit into foot_scale. I guess this is the sort of scenario where double tagging both foot_scale and sac_scale would be useful? (Plus of course surface=ice)

It’d be surefooted. T4 according to the OSM wiki in regards to glaciers just means it’s snow free, which seems like it’d vary depending on time of year? I see no problem with YDS, SAC, BMC, FD, etc existing alongside foot_scale in areas where they’re used and think it can be of benefit especially on more challenging terrain. I originally just tossed everything in a single scramble rating as a “here be dragons” idea and figured people that really cared could sort it out using local scales vs forcing SAC on the world.

More appropriate would be the AI or WI 8 point scale, since that’s more specific, it’d be WI 1 if seasonal or AI 1 if there year round.

I think it’d pair well with expanding hazards beyond wheeled centric travel, for example there could be an ice traction needed hazard or something that’d show up next to a path (ideally) in a renderer similar to how some jurisditions do print maps and how mapping providers handle stairs.

General discussion: when to use ways vs nodes for difficulty changes of difficulty or hazards on a trail + should we expand hazards (and/or create an obstacle=*) for hiking/walking/multi-use paths?

This is something that has come up obliquely in conversation a few times. Up in the mountains, or in the sandstone canyons of the Southwestern US it’s fairly common for an obstacle that could be T3 or even T4 (a simple mantle requires use of hands to pull yourself up) along an otherwise T1 or T2 path. In this thread someone mentioned making a 1m section of a path a scramble. It techniquely works, but feels awkward. I put up some related examples of brief obstacles/hazards in a previous commen…