Proposal:Safety measures on hiking trails

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Safety measures on hiking trails
Proposal status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: unixasket
Tagging: safety_rope=yes, length in m
Applies to: node, way
Definition: Ropes, rungs and ladders as safety measures on alpine hiking paths
Statistics:

Rendered as: As a red ladder, for example
Draft started: 2012-09-19
RFC start: 2012-09-20
Vote start: 2014-06-22
Vote end: 2014-07-06

Summary

On many hiking trails through mountainous areas, dangerous or difficult sections are secured by technical means like steel cables, fixed ropes, ladders, or rungs.

Example for fixed rope: Securing rope-small.jpg

Example for pins (next to a steel cable): Maxbe wege 70687.jpg

Rationale

Tagging secured sections in mountainous areas can help the hiker to identify difficult sections during the planning of her trip. sac_scale=* provides information about the general difficulty of a trail but doesn't reveal whether difficult sections are secured by technical means.

Related Tags

sac_scale=* describes the difficulty of alpine hiking trails.

There is a proposal for via ferrata: Proposed features/via ferrata. It also proposes the key ladder, therefore the keys in this proposal are defined accordingly.

How to map

All tags are added to an existing highway=path. Short sections can be tagged as node, longer sections as way. For rungs and pins, a complete group should be charted (not every single one as its own node). These tags are meant for hiking trails, they shouldn't be used for via ferrata because those ways are secured continuously by technical means.

If unsure whether to map a way as path with safety features or via ferrata see Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria for taging as either via ferrata or path

Main Tags

Key Value Element Description Example
safety_rope yes/length in m way node A cable, chain or rope to hold on to Thumb
ladder yes/length in m way node A ladder Thumb
rungs yes/amount way node Rungs, stemples, pins Thumb

Thumb

Additional Tag

Key Value Element Description
safety_rope_side left/right/both way node Describes on which side the cable is fastened, in relation to the way's direction. Only applicable if safety_rope=yes (or length value) exists.

Whole Path

If you don't want to split a longer highway=path into several segments to tag their particular safety measures you can add the following tag to the whole highway=path:

Key Value Element Description
assisted_trail yes way Way segment with different safety measures

Comments

Talk:Safety measures on hiking trails

Voting

Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and give your reasons to oppose. Use ~~~~ to sign your user name & date.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Unixasket (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. 4rch (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Paracetamolo (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Jmos (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Schnupfix (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Safety ropes and rungs always accompany a stretch of way. It does not make sense to tag them as nodes so this should be removed from the proposal. In the worst case it might lead to nonsensical mapping, tagging every rung individiually as a node. --Nop (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sometimes safety ropes are vertical. It is not possible in OSM to map vertical ways. Also safety ropes with less than 5 meter horizontal are to small to map as a way. In these cases nodes are better Unixasket (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Maxbe (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Alegria (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Jedrzej Pelka (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kaitu (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --KonfrareAlbert (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Carlos Sánchez (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. sletuffe (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Brycenesbitt (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Extremecarver (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Mondschein (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Bma (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)