RfC Part 3: foot_scale=* (aims to describe global paths in a more helpful and informative scale than SAC)

[erutan]

@rhhs

That would be better; I think “scramble” is a word that may be hard to translate without a change in meaning (Google translating it to the languages I know and then back to English usually results in “climbing” (i.e. it lost its meaning of “simple climbing”).

Yeah simple_climbing is sort of me deciphering/unpacking what scrambling means.

One issue I see is keeping foot_scale limited to lower scramble grades means that we either:

1 - new scramble key/value

the new scramble key (or higheway type) with a very range narrow values between foot_scale=* and climbing=*. I’d almost be tempted to have it just be a simple scramble=yes or something then have yds_scale=*, sac_scale=*, bmc_scale=* etc included alongside it.

This also gets weird where for example BMC 1 and 2 are in foot_scale but BMC 3 in in scramble - someone in the UK won’t consider that intuitive. I think that can be documented and makes logical sense, but might not be followed in reality.

2 - push all higher scrambles into climbing=*

I feel like this is cleaner and probably more accurate, but in many places a bmc_scale=3 or sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking isn’t thought of as technical climbing though it clearly falls into that range. I think calling UIAA 2 / YDS 5.4 hiking or walking is a bit absurd, but that’s my take from a different country.

If I do a short stretch of semi-technical scrambling while off trail I still consider myself “on foot” despite the increase in difficulty and technique, and I’m not even used to thinking of low Class 5 YDS as hiking.

@rhhs

Although mostly meant for wheeled vehicles, paths can also be tagged with smoothness=*. It is recommended to tag paths that are meant for short walks (to reach a destination, for short strolls) with smoothness=* (in urban environments, parks, etc.) and to use foot_scale=* for paths that are meant for longer (several hours) recreational walks in the countryside, hills and mountains.

I’m not sure about that.

If someone was looking at a short walking path in an urban park I think the distinction between casual and attentive is useful enough for most people to decide what to wear or who to bring along on it with them (or if they’d want to bring poles or a cane or whatever).

I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, someone can tag both. IMO smoothness often isn’t very useful for foot traffic - one of the intermediate examples has potholes (which can be walked around) and washboarding (which can’t) as the same smoothness level.