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

[erutan]

@erutan

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.

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).

2. 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.

3. 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