I just posted my vote. Mind you, I tried to establish such a new value in the highway key. In the process I learned: People found it extremely difficult to trust OSM mappers to decide, whether use of hands is necessary, therefore such a criterion cannot be used to tell apart a hands-free walkable path from a climbing route. Others found it extremely useful to have routes of national importance show in every map that is, and if such a new value would hide them, no-go, regardless of use-of-hands/equipment/you name it.
What about creating a new tag for highways requiring equipment instead of a sixth value? Something like requires_equipment=yes
, or more detailed requires_equipment:crampons=yes
, requires_equipment:rope=yes
etc. It could be applied both for highway=path
and for a new highway type for SAC T5+
This idea seems reasonable to me. If the terms “equipment” or “tools” are too broad and could be interpreted to include more common things like hiking boots, trekking poles, or a compass the value could be further qualified with something like *specialist_tools*
or *special_equipment*
. The idea being that ways with this foot scale value require some specialist equipment beyond the typical gear for an average day hike. People will probably quibble about what counts as special equipment, but this seems solvable with good documentation on the wiki. It might also vary a bit by region if some peice of equipment is considered totally normal and carried by everyone in one place, but is niche and only for specialists in another. That hypothetical can probably be set aside until/unless something concrete comes up.
More detailed optional keys specifying the type of equipment required are a good idea. The point of the sixth value though is just to indicate “this terrain is more difficult to traverse than the average path and requires special equipment and/or skills”. Some data consumers that aren’t interested in the nuances of backcountry terrain can just treat all ways tagged with this in the same manner indicating “beware, difficult/hazardous terrain” to their users. Other data consumers can take this sixth value as an indication to look for other tags that specify more detail.
I know that you’re discussing specialised equipment required for rock climbing, ice etc, but I’ve seen Australian hiking tracks that are marked that you must carry a PLB, & that you must also carry 1l of water per person per day.
PLB could also come under “requires_equipment” but how about water?
Sorry for the long absence, I’ll aiming to link to a proper draft page of this with photos soon.
I think having a sixth value is useful because it caps off the scale and provides utility at a glance - this is above what a normal untrained (able bodied etc) person can reasonably do. Agreed on some way of specifying what kind of equipment it requires.
This could also work with a hazards tag that isn’t just for vehicles - ice, exposed rock, deep pools, etc.
Yeah it seems like a reasonable way to cap things off, and doesn’t hit some of the issues of the previous “unwalkable” (hopping over a rock, ducking under a tree branch, trail running, etc). While obviously people can climb well above T6 without rope, your average person off the street shouldn’t be attempting it without protection (which is one reason via ferrata exists).
Yeah, ice axes will be very common in the Alps etc above a certain elevation. That’s still within a somewhat specialist mountaineering community though. I suppose in some tropical environments a machete or similar might be standard as well, but I agree that feels niche.
Yeah, I kept the word specialist in there for that reason.
A PLB doesn’t impact your ability to actually traverse the path. Carrying water is a pretty common thing to do, and most people have water bottles. 1L per person per day seems incredibly low. The Grand Canyon recommends 4L iirc, but obviously people can dayhike portions of those trails with far less or nothing.
There could be a hazard tag for something like “no water sources, excessive heat” etc.
This an a known route, the National Park Service issues overnight permits for it etc. There is effectively no path, but at least on this beach at this time it’d be casual. I suppose at a higher tide and up on softer sand with some rocks around it’d be attentive.
This isn’t really covered in foot_scale - generally speaking such invisible routes are getting into more technical terrain, but routes below high tide line are an interesting outlier.
I see, casual is breathing outdoor and perhaps a tiny bit of adventure too; And that is how I perceive of it just as well
I might need to reword casual
- path width here doesn’t exist (though there’s obviously room to walk past someone or walk side by side etc).
I suppose pathless paths could be attentive
just because you have to look where you’re going and do some routefinding, but then we’re getting into a weird overlap with visibility (which we both have issues with).
Depends on the tide…
Yeah. I copied and pasted some conversation from elsewhere else related to this.
Also was able to troll both trail_visibility and sac_scale at the end so
Back to work now…
As this is the current, active, RFC, I’ll write down my view, mentioned in other threads.
Scale
You are trying to come up with a difficulty scale, from what I understand. This is exactly what the SAC scale does, too. And a few others, as well. So, any argument that goes against the SAC scale applies to the new scale, too. Just look at the history (of the SAC or UIAA scales) and you will see that nothing new is being done here. Same old problems, same old solutions.
Literally every negative argument from the first post will apply to the new scale sooner or later.
Someone who doesn’t bother to check the values in the SAC scale will also not bother to check any other scale.
Scrambling
I see a problem with classifying scrambling. It already belongs to the hiking scale (SAC T4-T6) and the climbing scale (UIAA I-III). Even SAC and UIAA overlap. But, the more the merrier, having another scale may make someone happy, so why not?
Equipment
The use of equipment can hardly be mandated. Just look at the Oscar-winning Alex Honnold and see what equipment he uses for routes we can only dream of.
Via Ferattas have a relatively standardised set of equipment. There is also a set of safe equipment and standards for climbing, as recommended by the country alpine/mountaineering clubs. But nobody is going to fine you for not wearing a helmet.
Tags
Finally, it is worth linking this to the efforts in defining new tags for pathless and perhaps adding climbing to the same level, so I’ll add links here:
Copying from the other thread that was closed:
I think this proposal needs to address how it relates to SAC_scale. Does it replace it or is it supposed to live with it? I can imagine it is better if it replaced it, but I am not sold on the idea of them living together indefinitely. If there is a roadmap to eventually convert sac_scale to this (or provide specific guidance when both are to be used), then I think it is indeed interesting and would cautiously support it. I can understand that SAC feels Europe-centric.
Also, I am shamelessly plugging this: Adding T0/strolling to sac_scale
When I started the RfC for highway=scrambIe I did include UIAA III. I was told, this not OK. Caveat emptor the proposal would exclude UIAA III. SAC only calls scrambling for what inside UIAA II, while UIAA only mentions UIAA I as scrambling.
Generally, as far as I know, UIAA II not considered climbing. BMC grade3 verbatim called scrambling. Regardless of exposure (not to sun-light.) I am not confident this within UIAA II.
Yes, you are correct. These are the borderline values. The original UIAA scale was designed when people were still climbing in their hiking boots.
I have not seen any separate climbing routes with grades I and II. Even III are really rare and are usually found on multi-pitch routes in between harder pitches. I would almost consider it a harder scrambling, based on the ones I’ve seen.
I’m wondering why a separate category is needed if these can already be identified as climbing routes with easier grades.
And they are also included in the hiking SAC scale.
What is the benefit of marking them explicitly as scrambling?
Thanks - so practically, what you’re suggesting, is to map this example (the Chimney on Striding Edge, a “public footpath” in English legal jargon, and a grade 1 scramble in the British grading system) with a tag to say it’s a climbing route e.g. climbing=route
and with climbing:grade:uiaa=1
but without a highway=
tag?
Here’s a video of the descent.
I’m not sure if you’re discussing highway=scramble
vs. highway=path
or if you’re discussing foot_scale=scrambling
vs. sac_scale=alpine_hiking
vs. climbing:grade:uiaa=1
. I see the two (highway classification and difficulty grading) as somewhat separate questions.
Yes. Your assumption is correct. This example, based on the majority of opinions, is definitely not a path.
I would argue that climbing=route
is a bad choice of words. A climbing route (including scrambling) is a separate way. I.e. pathway=climbing
.
It seems like a grade I or II. Seems very logical to me. Most people would not want to be routed there. While others would want to find exactly sections like this.
Do you see any problems with this?
It is also true that this is a perfectly valid T5/T6 path on SAC difficulty scale. The section in the video is only about 10m long so it is hard to say.
Edit: OK, the answer is not that clear-cut. “Without a highway tag” is correct but the highway=
tag would be replaced by pathway=
tag (or whatever is adopted).
I bet in my local area this scramble would be graded “T4 - alpine hiking” on said scale. Seems in the UK too Way: 766433687 | OpenStreetMap
The path shared by @osmuser63783 gets T3+ here Helvellyn, 950 m, mit Striding Edge, Swirral Edge, Catstye Cam [hikr.org] – likely because of the ascent further to the west, they walked around the rock with the chimney.
As I mentioned, a 10m section is not representative of the whole way.
If this is the only tricky section on a 5km path, then yes, likely it does not go more than T4.
The T4 definition states “Use of hands needed in order to advance in certain places.”. Without hands he would not be able to go down this section.
However, if there are 500-600m of terrain just like this, then it could as well be a T5, a demanding alpine hiking, instead.
Nevertheless, the point is that the section can also be marked as a path and has a valid grading in that context, too. That seems to be causing lots of stir as “normal” people don’t consider this to be a path.
Edit: I watched another video on the ascent. That little section (The Chimney) seems to be the only tricky bit. But quite easy to climb/descend as people do it in their running shoes. Otherwise, rather boring in comparison to the Austrian countryside.
To me there is also a question on how granular sac scale should be. Should that short stretch get T5 and the rrst T3 or should all of it be T4? For routers, higher granularity is better as they can better guess time needed to traverse; users might overlook a very short stretch of T5 when looking at the map casually.
That’s a great question. What I do in that respect, I take the rules from the climbing community (UIAA grades).
The overall multi-pitch route has a grade, let’s say V. When you look at the topo (the map of the route), you see it has 5 pitches. Each pitch is broken down further into sections, each one graded separately.
However, it is always the highest grade that gets propagated. Because, if you can’t climb those 2m of grade V then you get stuck irrespective of the rest of the route being III or IV, or less.
The same is done for via ferattas. The whole route gets a grade (D) based on the hardest part. Sometimes there is an easier version, in which case it is written C (D), I think. C/D would mean “between C and D”.
And it doesn’t matter if you only have two short D sections on the route or the whole 770m is pretty-much D. This is something that is analyzed in the preparation phase and why someone just-on-a-stroll should not go there.