Should we just use `smoothness` and `surface` along with `sac_scale` on multi-use paths and trails instead of making new keys?

[erutan]

@SomeoneElse

I’ll regularly tag something as smoothness=bad when I’m walking, even though (because I’m walking) I am not in any way inconvenienced by any unevenness of the surface.

That seems appropriate to me if the level of unevenness is roughly in line with the wiki.

@rhhs

For those who want, there is the possibility to tag with smoothness=bad or maybe very_bad to indicate that the trail is at the difficult end of sac_scale=hiking.

This is what I have an issue with.

I don’t see the logic in downgrading a rating in order to indicate difficulty. Mountain bikes at least can travel on T2 terrain, which would pretty always be horrible or impassible. If someone thinks “'wow this is really hard T2, I better change it to very_bad” they are actually UNDERRATING the terrain.

All T3 is basically impassible by definition. I struggle to think of terrain that was so uneven I had to use my hands for balance that was less than 24cm high. Making hard T3 bad is just… weird.

If the smoothness key is going to mean one thing for T1 terrain, then another thing for T2-T3 terrain that should be documented instead of being a sort of “shadow key”.

In a broad sense SAC or my proposed hiking_technique cover the smoothness in any way a hiker will care about (I think my proposal which adds another T1 level value does a better job) as per Trail_visibility explained - #12 by erutan

It’s either smooth enough I don’t need to think about my footing, not smooth but I can walk between obstacles, not smooth enough I need to walk over the obstacles, even less smooth that I’d probably need to use my hands for balance, or (this sounds weird) so unsmooth I need to scramble.

That makes sense to me, and feels a lot cleaner than saying that terrain which I need to use my hands for balance is so rough that it should be marked as uneven as a road with some washboarding or potholes in it.