Does picture below show a well cleared path (cleared of what, I may ask? But this it not subject of this poll) in the sense that the language in OSM key sac_scale uses the term?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
I think the way you asked the question is very unfortunate. The definition from hiking is âTrail well cleared or with rather minor obstacles like rootsâ. This is the latter, but it is unclear if answering no means it should not be considered hiking. I voted no but I am convinced it is a great example of hiking with no ambiguity. How do you want to interpret the results?
4 Likes
Yep, I donât understand whatâs voting upon.
Until September 2024 the description of sac_scale value hiking read: Trail well cleared. Exposed areas well secured. If the answer to poll above is ânoâ and tagging to the letter, such a path could not have been graded hiking back then and starting in 2008.
The recent addition âor with rather minor obstacles like rootsâ lets me tag hiking there without pain. Certainly, the question could have been worded differently to better address that dilemma. Regarding interpretation, perhaps another poll in order:
The recent change in documentation of value hiking in key sac_scale
- only matches current practice
- made tagging less ambiguous
- extends the scope too much
0
voters
Rationale: If strolling catches on, hiking will centre more on such paths and some consumers may have to reconsider their interpretations.
Oh in that case I am changing my vote. The answer to the literal meaning of your question and your intended meaning are opposite. I wonder how many people who just voted and are not reading this discussino feel the same.
I think the previous definitino was not ideal, I guess that is what you are aiming at. That is why I change it a bit to better describe a typical hiking trail (which can still be well cleared but does not really have to be to be very easy). However, I think people implicitly use it more or less in a way as it is defined now, as it is common sense (and that polll about this picture attests: File:River Plym - geograph.org.uk - 1620054.jpg - OpenStreetMap Wiki - if people took âwell clearedâ literally, it could have never been considered for hiking).
I understand strolling hiking as effectively splitting previous hiking into two. I am sure there are a lot of ways currently tagged as âhikingâ that are more appropriatelly âstrollingâ. I think I myselft must have tagged some ways like that (if only I remembered which ones :-D).
Funny, you now see a âtrail well clearedâ where there is a trail âwith rather minor obstacles like rootsâ Both are connected with an âorâ in the OSM documentation. I guess that is just to make on the ground observation compatible with tagging sac_scale=hiking there. I still do not see a âtrail well clearedâ there. Even though I am not strictly against tagging T1 there, at least when this is just a short section of a clearly T1 hike and one where obviously nothing calls for T2. (Deliberately using shorthand code, as spelled out in the documentation in the SAC equivalent column.)
I donât know, but I would hike there any time.
1 Like
I see a trail with minor obstacle and I see âhikingâ trail. âhikingâ can be cleared or with minor obstacles. these are not the same things, but they are lumped together. My vote means âthis is a âhikingâ trailâ. I think the sac_scale was badly worded, hence the change, but even before the change, common understanding meant that was also âhikingâ and it was correct.
I usually walk there 
The question of the poll was: Does the picture show a âTrail well clearedâ?
To add a bit of detail on the scene: It shows an informal path, the close by strolling trail started to get muddy this spring/summer, people started to walk around the muddy section. Obviously roots preferred.
If a surface like that compatible with sac_scale=hiking is a wholly different question. Just voting âYes, this shows a âTrail well clearedââ because that seems required by the tag wanted for seems cheating to me.
To repeat: I am not against tagging sac_scale=hiking there 
The recent addition to the wiki made that a no-brainer. This poll is a bit about the past 16 years of mapping before the change. And BTW, the River Plym picture is different, there basic sure-footedness required in my opinion, so sac_scale=mountain_hiking.
path=shared_use it is then.
I think the edit you made on the wiki is ambigious. Rather than start an edit war, I made a poll with question that should have been asked in the first place:
Meanwhile I have consulted with a member of the SAC working group on the scale of theirs. I learned: In their latest revision, they deliberately changed some terms in the titles of the columns of their scale to make them less likely to be misunderstood. The change relevant to this picture:
Where before the column title read Trail/Terrain it now reads Typical Terrain and Possible Difficulties.
Consequence of that: Trail well cleared is no longer a necessary condition, it is just something people can typically expect from a T1 (hiking in OSM terms) graded hike.
That is why I wrote âTrail with minor obstacles, nothing to warrant anything above hiking.â because that describes what is relevant for grading and can be seen from the picture.