Dear all, martianfreeloader, wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 10:52:06 GMT+0200
I think if something is tagged highway=path then data consumers should be able to expect that regular people can walk on it without having to look at an ever growing zoo of secondary tags. > ... I think a new generic highway=<some_new_value> is a very good idea. > It would encompass any way which requires at least one of these: - special skill - extraordinary courage - special equipment.
I agree to your underlying motivation 👍 To understand what exactly people would expect from highway=path, I looked up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path and interestingly, *wikipedia has no definition for "path" but only for less generic terms,* so bridle path, foodpath, sidewalk, trail, or desire path (which seems to include typical mountain hiking paths). *Maybe we as OSM community shall never have introduced the generic highway=path but only more specialized ones. Maybe we shall correct that and deprecate highway=path.* Why? Because in different areas, an "usual path" in local understanding will have quite different characteristics. In flat areas like northern Germany, a path is usually not at all demanding. Many can even be driven with stroller or city bike – mostly limited by how soft the ground is and the width between vegetation. In mountain regions like Alps, Atlas or Andes, connections between two points are sometimes in flat areas like valley or tableland, so ways with same characteristics as above, but sometimes paths hit hurdles caused by the terrain, like crossing a field of big rock blocks, high steps, a steep grass area, etc. Many of such paths are often not created for tourists, but are traditional connections. They were managed over hundreds of years by average people with no extraordinary equipment or skills, they can be used by young kids and elderly locals – even if containing scrambling sections. So, such a mountain path obviously matches your definition, i.e. your definition is probably including "too many" paths for the purpose you had in mind 😕 Such mountain paths also perfectly match https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path as well as https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trampelpfad which tell both _"small trail created ... by human or animal traffic. The path usually represents the shortest or the most easily navigated route between an origin and destination"_ and the DE page makes it even more clear (translation by me) _"paths represent the shortest route, even if one can proceed only slowly"._ Both do not require you can walk upright without ever using hands or without facing the risk of falling down a deep cliff. Back to your underlying motivation and suggestion. martianfreeloader wrote Tue Sep 20 2022 13:42:47 GMT+0200
Yes, what I have in mind is a new primary tag: `highway=scramble` with secondary tags like `scramble=via_ferrata` `scramble=climbing` `scramble=alpine_hiking`
*I strongly suggest to use use a more generic term than scramble.* Why? As I learned in the discussion, "scramble" has a quite well defined meaning in some parts of the world, so it creates assumptions that will neither be met for a narrow but horizontal tunnel nor for a climbing UIAA grade VI – so we'd end up exactly with the same situation as we now have and as described in the first sentence of this mail 🙄 Maybe the more generic term could just be "path" combined with certain "qualities" like e.g. highway=easy_path and highway=demanding_path? I don't mind whether highway=demanding_path also contains paths with considerable incline, which is told in secondary tag, or we'd have a third alternative highway=mountaineering (or other term). I like the approach to split current highway=path into two different values that are thought from view of map & data consumers. I also assume many data & map consumers would appreciate if the primary tag alone made it easy to distinguish between easy paths "everyone" can go without further research and one "more demanding" path type where you better look at the additional tags before deciding whether you want to walk that path in your individual situation. *Of course, we'd need a definition allowing to tell apart the easy from the demanding path type. Here's a first suggestion.* It includes feasibility with a stroller or city bike – well knowing both are vehicles while we are [also] talking about ways for [purely] pedestrian use – because their usage limit is hopefully much less individual than "easy to walk" or "requiring use of hands". Easy path: A path that * matches current definition of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath (mainly: a highway not fitting to another value like track, footway or bridleway and open to non-motorized vehicles) * poses no considerable risks, so e.g. no hazards like quicksand and not directly next to a deep cliff without railing * can be walked upright without use of hands for balance or propelling by the vast majority of humans that are able to walk and have sufficient eyesight & cognitive abilities to recognize and cope with obstacles like branches [these restrictions compared to "walkable by everyone" shall avoid that even very easy paths would not qualify because e.g. some people won't walk it because of vertigo, or all blind people would face considerable risks not detectable by their stick] * could be driven – if path has an incline, downhill – with a bike or an empty stroller that are not of the most fragile type, if path's smoothness was good and with sufficient for the vehicle ["downhill" avoids discussion about single steps, "empty" avoids discussions due to level of risk/courage perception associated with babies, hypothetical values for smoothness & width avoid discussion that actual path can't be done by stroller] Everything else becomes a demanding path, so for example * crawling sections, e.g. in tunnels * a mostly flat path over demanding surface like big rock blocks https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dXQsIyml3FM/WZCOAtfMVXI/AAAAAAAAB9I/Bp6aVmpxlg09iwC9gBMvawtZj6uID35CACEwYBhgL/s1600/DSCN0615.JPG * a path over "questionable" bridges like https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/gefallener-baumstamm-als-br%C3%BCcke-%C3%BCber-einem-fluss-im-gr%C3%BCnen-wald-handarbeit-155342057.jpg As a consequence, in some regions, most paths will become demanding paths. Additional tags could carry more detailed information about what makes that path demanding, e.g. height=0.5m or hazard=falling for a bridge section.
Tertiary tags would be: `via_ferrate_scale=*` `climbing:grade:uiaa=*` `sac_scale=*` The secondary tags would be orthogonal. In case of conflict, the > most common use of the scramble should be tagged. The tertiary > tags
can be used side by side if applicable. I'd strongly favor that already secondary tag may carry multiple values, because it would first time make it a no-brainer to map ways with multiple usage possibilities – which is quite often in the fuzzy overlapping zone of difficult hike & MTB trail, a scramble, easy via ferrata and easy climb.
I suggest we first decide whether we find the general concept of highway=scramble to be useful and want to introduce it at all. In case we answer this positively, then focus on working out the exact details like what's the exact sac scale threshold, etc.
👍 Best regards, Georg _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
