+1
A more reasonable trail_visibility where excellent wasn’t the only value that had a contiguous path (lolwut) would allow for this, and this is a point that @Hungerburg has been rightly insistent on making.
If there was an excellent that roughly mirrored the NFS Class 4-5 specifications for visibility, then good was along the lines of NFS Class 3, with 2/1 inspiring a poor and bad or something I think it’d be more useful and approachable rather than the current system in which 2/3 of the values are for some level of pathless terrain. I feel trail_visibility is more broken than sac_scale.
At this point it’s a busted system with a lot of use which makes it hard to change in any meaningful manner, and IMO there is a regional subjectivity to path visibility, creation, and construction that doesn’t exist with just movement over terrain (I agree with @osmuser63783 in this, just not that sac_scale does it well enough for a general casual hiking population). Having some new subsets of trail_visibility that use the old one as a fallback would make sense. Australia probably has different standards for trail visibility given people are used to walking through the bush than the US or Europe etc - if the Swiss are fine with sac_scale based visibility, that’s great they can keep using it as the first if before the else.