On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:52 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick > <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have a similar system here > > > > The Australian Walking Track Grading System > > > > Grade 1 is suitable for the disabled with assistance > > Grade 2 is suitable for families with young children > > Grade 3 is recommended for people with some bushwalking experience > > Grade 4 is recommended for experienced bushwalkers, and > > Grade 5 is recommended for very experienced bushwalkers > > And all five of those grades are sac_scale=hiking, which is why I say > that's an impossible scale to use for the purpose we're considering.
That's not correct. If you have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale you'll notice that only from sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking the scale starts to have the requirement "basic alpine expericence" and "good hiking shoes". So: Only Grade 1 and 2 are clear sac_scale=hiking. Grade 4 would map to sac_scale=mountain_hiking and Grade 5 to sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking. Grade 3 is a bit inbetween but I'd probably put it under sac_scale=mountain_hiking to be on the safe side. The SAC scale grades 1-3 are quite helpful. It's just the blue scales 4-6 which are not really applicable in OSM because very few routes of that scale would fall under the highway=path classification (even under the catch-all definition of OSM). Sarah _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
