I overhauled the examples table in the wiki documentation on highway=path (awaiting revert.) There is a picture there serving as an example how to do it correctly. For full correctness, I’d say an sac_scale tag wanted. But I do not have the guts to decide from my own neck. So here for voting, below picture:
If we take the wiki text literally as it is now (strolling cannot be more steep than “very slightly inclined”), it should be hiking. However, sac_scale is trying to evaluate multiple properties at the same time: technical difficulty, exposure and steepness. These often change together, but not always. This is an example where technical difficulty does not increase with increasing steepness. I think we should primarily look at technical difficulty when evaluating sac_scale, and add additional secondary tags like incline=*, hazard=* for paths that have low technical difficulty but increased exposure and steepness. That’s why I voted strolling.
Additinal tags for this path: incline=?, trail_visibility=excellent, smoothness=good, surface=dirt
Can someone explain why they voted hiking? Is it because of the width of the path? Then please read the introduction of the wiki (“The key sac_scale=* is used to classify hiking trails with regard to the difficulties to be expected.” and “A difficulty rating scheme for hiking trails.”) and explain what the width of a path has to do with difficulty?
I voted “hiking”; I feel that width can affect difficulty and this should be factored into sac_scale, particularly when distinguishing between hiking and strolling. A person who relies on a cane or a walker would have a hard time navigating the path shown in the image. The current image for sac_scale=strolling on the wiki better represents my understanding of that value: the trail is wide enough for two people to walk side by side (or for one not-as-surefooted person to walk without worrying about a misplaced step sending them tumbling off the path).
Surefootedness is on the low side of the scale, but not zeroed given the path width and very limited, but existing exposure.
Same as @jake-low and @yvecai , that’s no strolling, never. For me it would not be an easy stroll, I even thought of using mountain_hiking, because of the width and exposure.
Offtopic:
I would rather tag it with smoothness=bad, not good, not even intermediate, see the values section of Key:smoothness - OpenStreetMap Wiki. It’s not suitable for a road bike. Good needs usually a paved surface.
The choice between intermediate (as tagged in the wiki) or bad would depend on a visit of this path. In the wiki I read for intermediate
I am for Hiking. Why didn’t anybody select mountain hiking? I did not put the choice up by chance. The terrain on display has an incline of ~40°, no railing to avoid falling. How would this be graded, if there were not a grassy slope and some trees but bare rock or scree there? A wrong step may send a person walking on the side of the path down the hill for several meters both the same. It might hurt more on rocks. Walkers there should pay a tiny bit of attention to the ground, even though the trail itself is well cleared and a meter wide.
So, what does having to watch your step a tiny bit, especially the elderly, perhaps watch your kids too a tiny bit, what does that have to do with difficulty? Reading the blog of the local mountain rescue, scenes like that make for some of their calls. They’d never call the ability to walk there safe “sure-footedness”, neither would I.
Mind you, that the original SAC scale considers falling danger starting from T2. The rationale: It takes mental strength and willpower, so a difficulty after all. This here a little cousin?
The poll result stands at 75/25 so meets the ratio required for formal approval of proposals. I could understand that as a mandate to add the tag sac_scale=hiking to the Wiki. If it was not for that somebody disliked the poll itself. I can only guess as to why, I have a sneaking suspicion though, so another poll in order:
People voting “no” please explain.
I voted no at first, then changed my vote to yes after some more thought and realization that the list on that page gives recommendation for what tag values to use, not just keys.
The surface of the path is as easy as it gets for hiking trails, that’s why I initially felt like tagging it with sac_scale=strolling. There is indeed some exposure, though nothing unusual in mountainous areas, so I can agree to sac_scale=hiking being mentioned on the wiki, if it is explained that it’s that value because of the exposure.
You could also add trail_visibility=excellent, to promote the use of that key. I think it’s a good example of a “Well-constructed” path as mentioned in the original SAC scale description.
I see it just the same, as close to what the picture shows as can get. Including niche applications. And that means, a tag not a key.
So, why did you not vote “Mountain Hiking”?
Sorry, I do not see exposure in the picture. I see hazard of deep fall in the sense of falling below walking ground.
I see mild exposure here: File:Steig Seebergspitze.jpg - Wikimedia Commons (Mapped as demanding_mountain_hiking (T3) in openstreetmap.) showing BTW another
PS: You wrote much of the “smoothness” WIKI prose. From reading that, I’d also say (as @Vinzenz_Mai) the path pictured above rather tagged smoothness=bad than intermediate. Would it make sense to offer two tables there: One for roads, another one for paths?
Because when evaluating sac_scale, I primarily look at technical difficulty (how difficult it is to walk or climb there) and not so much at the presence of deep gaps next to the path.
That’s what I call “exposure”. I think we agree here.
I would have no problem riding my racing bike on this path: it looks smooth enough for it. But as the wiki says “The best unpaved but compacted roads fall in this category” for intermediate, I can agree to that (I wrote it, so I should 
). A bad surface should have potholes or severe washboarding like the wiki pictures, and I don’t see anything like that here.
So this will be rare on paths, both features exclusively due to car traffic.
PS: I would never recommend the path pictured above for race bike riding. Perhaps you own a gravel bike, those are said to be a kind of race bike?
Here quote from the SAC handbook, a copyrighted document, I plead fair use to further discussion on relevant issues, translation from German and oblique explanation by me:
The SAC hiking scale, introduced in 2002 and last revised in 2022, enables a graded assessment of the difficulty of hiking routes. It ranges from T1 to T6 and takes the following aspects into account:
- Difficulty of the terrain («technical» difficulty)
- Exposure («mental» difficulty)
- Difficulty of orientation/wayfinding
- Risk of deep falls (below walking ground)
Generally, the scale is not about hazards, it is about difficulty only. So why deep falls? Because those are the physical base for the mental thrill called exposure.
PS: The take the SAC has on term exposure did remind me of how the term is used in the U.S:
I remember having read in this forum someone from Australia linking exposure to sunlight. That reminds me of the full name of mine here, ASA 100. I still think “head for heights” means, not having the feeling, or at least not getting crag-fast from it? (Another English term I like a lot.)
Thanks, that’s how I also see it. Maybe because the path discussed here looks very much like this one
sac_scale=strolling because you don’t have to watch your step at all and there is no feeling of danger. After the tree there are some rocks that you have to pay some attention to because you could trip over them (but still plenty of smooth area to put your feet). That makes that part sac_scale=hiking.
Of course I mean “roughness similar to potholes and washboarding”, which I don’t see here. It looks like this kind of path
Lucky you, but for other people , such a slope close to the path can be thrilling enough to feel that this goes beyond strolling, hence my vote for ‘hiking’. I do understand ‘exposure’ as in the definition given above, and I know that ‘mental thrill’ thershold is very personal.
I agree with the majority here on T1. I would also like to share a website I found with many good examples, also mentioning some of the flaws of the SAC scale (sorry, German only): https://der-eskapist.de/tipps/die-sac-wanderskala-einfach-erklaert-alles-was-du-wissen-musst/
As “strolling” is not part of the scale, it’s rather ambiguous because it doesn’t have an official and extensive definition, but to make the category in some way meaningful, there has to be a significant difference from other paths that are T1.
Some more notes:
The SAC scale has been developped for paths that are marked by the Swiss hiking clubs. Applying it to unmarked paths creates some kind of an issue as orientation automatically becomes more difficult. So imho the rating should then try to be based only on the other criteria to not have lots of paths that are easy to walk on with a still high rating.
The scale doesn’t say there is absolutely no risk of falling at all for level T1. A quote from the linked site explaining this: “Danger of falling should be out of question for a large part if behaving in a normal way.” I think this clearly applies to the given image too which justifies a T1 rating.
Another quote: “The SAC hiking scale is not a scale for rating risks and hazards.”
