mtb:scale=6 and differentiation node/way
Mtbikers and also the bikes get better and better. Inofficially many riders use level 6 and even level 7 to highlight really difficult spots. To accommodate this fact I have added mtb:scale=6 to the classifcation. Note 6 is so difficulty that a longer way of that difficulty would not be rideable. Therefore it is to be used for single spots, that are of exceptional difficulty. On the other hand I noted trails being marked mtb:scale=5 that were clearly (not even partly) rideable even for the best mtbikers anymore. Therefore I added 6 as a difficulty for ways, that are clearly not rideable anymore. Note that there is also via_feratta_scale but this does not really help, cause good mtbikers can still bike on many easy ferattas (but not all). Also sac_scale=T5 or T6 is sometimes usable for mtbikers, but not always, so a new value was needed.--Extremecarver 17:55, 9 June 2011 (BST)
IMBA Trail Standard
The International Mountain BIking Association is now the international peak body for mountain biking. It's trail standard is as close to and ISO standard that MTB trails have....it is further more based off the long established Ski trail difficulties.
The IMBA scale should be the standard for tagging mtb trail difficulty....not some arbitrary scale or a standard that applies to just a few countries.
If riders can't ride it...then it is no longer an accessible trail....or is clearly IMBA Double Black.
- Read the old discussion bout it. IMBA is very good for bikeparks and artificially built trails/obstacles, but it gives absolutely no separation for natural trails (or hiking trails in alpine regions). It's simply useless for most non artificial trails.--Extremecarver 16:24, 2 July 2011 (BST)
Currently mtb:scale applies only to either highway=path or highway=track.
However, there are other roads suitable for mountain bikes. For instance, residential, unclassified, or even tertiary roads are unpaved sometimes, and so can be used for mtbiking, like rural or forest tracks.
Why don't we extend the use of this tag also to other (unpaved?) highways (highway=*)? The same could be done for mtb:scake:uphill as well. -- solitone, 20120118
The idea with avoidable crux places denoted as a point outside of the way seems rather impractical to me for processing reasons. In such a case, I would suggest creating two ways (sort of a split fork), one with lower difficulty, the other with higher difficulty. This makes it clear to which way the difficulty belongs, without having to measure closeness of the point to the ways. --Hopet (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Well of course - but is there actually a consensus to use highway=steps instead of steps=yes on highway=path? I'm not sure if there is a need to point out that mtb:scale can be applied also to highway=steps...--Extremecarver (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- do this tag exist (steps key)? i can't find it on this wiki. --Ppong (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- well you're correct. I thought it is used more often: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/steps=yes vs http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=steps. It must be made clear however -that it only applies to longer sections of steps. For one "flight" of steps - e.g. 20steps - I don't think mtb:scale makes sense. For long ways - say longer 100m - it of course makes sense... (or better - as soon as the steps are more difficult than can be generally expected...--Extremecarver (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- stairs can be easy or difficult when they are short as when they are long, sure it's not very useful to add mtb:scale tag to a 10 m stairway, but it's no less useful than to add the same tag to a 10 m section of a path or to a very short path that could be an easier variation of a difficult path or a connection between two different paths. therefore, since stairs have different difficulties, i think mtb:scale key would be useful combinated to highway=steps in places where is used on paths too. --Ppong (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)