Talk:Climbing

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Other channels for OSM climbing discussion

Copyright issues

I raised this proposal on the Talk-GB list, to see if it was likely to get any traction or objections, and the copyright status of route information was raised. I'd initially believed that BMC vs Rockfax 2001 had gone to court, but it appears that £10000 of lagal advice convinced them not to try it. So strictly speaking there has been no ruling on the status of routes, but the standard that has been adopted by British guide book authors and publishers in the UK appears to be that the name, location, and line of a route is a matter of fact, and therefore un-copyrightable, grade is a grey area, but descriptions, topo, etc. are copyrighted.

Names cannot be copyrighted in the UK: UK Copyright Service And simple facts of the location and line don't appear to fall under any other category of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 UKCS SUmmary

But we do need to be wary of Trademark issues. I suspect mapping the route Nike Air Max might be a bad idea. But mapping Nike when it's sat next to "Pegasus" is probably in the clear.

And a summary of the debate from a Rockfax point of view: [1]

-- Rasilon (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How can we get the climbing sites (!) quickly into OSM?

This proposal was nearly unchanged between 2009-10 and 2013-04, so its proposed tags had at least 3,5 years to spread. Around the world, 2013-04-23 taginfo reports only 499 uses of key climbing=* and 192 uses of climbing:rock=* -- so very low numbers compared to over 1600 topos (usually depicting 1 crag) in the climbing area of Frankenjura (DE) alone! :-( Even in climbing "mekka" areas, many sectors/crags are not yet in OSM, not even with the established sport=climbing.

Hence, I have the impression this proposal is caring about far too detailed tagging for the current OSM state and I doubt we shall focus discussing how to tag single routes or even different bolt types, but we shall focus to quickly develop a suiting tagging convention for "the big building blocks", i.e. for climbing sites / aggregated elements like climbing areas, sectors, crags/boulders/... and of course climbing halls etc. At that granularity,

  • tagging can be finished quickly for whole areas (=> quickly accumulate a critical mass of information so it starts getting really useful for climbers)
  • a very limited set of meta data like website=* or url=* could make OSM a "router" to detailed information (like topos, DAV Felsinfo etc.) on a global scale (AFAIK this does not yet exist at all with spatial information, so it will be very useful for climbers)
  • climbers usually supplement their guide books by maps to get at better overview, to plan the approach etc. but most maps don't contain information that's relevant for climbers (approach paths, crags, etc.) but OSM already does often and is increasingly getting better => OSM can really stand out for the "getting there" use case

So already by tagging relatively few (only aggregated) elements there are best perspective to convince more climbers to use OSM more intense, which in turn allows the community to start to focus adding detail informations like routes etc. Hence, discussion on how to tag detail information shall not stop now, neither trying those proposals in real world, but IMHO it shall not be the focus until we got the main elements into the map. It's the same approach that worked fine for the street network: Mapping most bigger / highly used streets was done first, mapping all the details (like service roads, tracks etc.) came mostly later.

What do you think? Shall we focus on aggregated / higher level elements for climbing? Please leave your "vote" in the according sub-heading. Thank you :-) --Schoschi (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: At DE:Tag:sport=climbing a few people startet experiments how aggregated elements might be tagged, created a JOSM tagging preset/template (EN+DE) and are discussing that in the forum.

Agreeing/Supporting

I like the idea of using OSM to pin point crags (and sectors) and add some general info, plus access info/foot paths.

I also believe that there should be an icon to go with the name of the crag/site for sport=climbing, as with all other sports (I haven't seen one, though it has been proposed before).

As an OSM beginner, could I also suggest that maybe there should be a quick "how to" for climbers like me that don't know the ins-and-outs of OSM but want to help. (I'm not sure whether there is something in German - I don't speak it.) This might get things going a little faster. --Dchriss (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


I am also highly in favour of using an existing open database to store climbing related info. I have been sitting of the idea organising, aggregating and opening up various silos of climbing information (e.g. thecrag.com, mountainproject.com, rockclimbing.com, ukclimbing.com, etc.) and fronting them with a powerful augmented reality mobile interface.

If you'd like more info, please see the site I put together to float the idea: http://craglist.drupalgardens.com/

Having the ability to store approaches, crags, routes and related metadata in OSM, would be a step in the right direction, from Craglist point of view. --Chainik (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. Starting from the bottom is a bad choice here. How can we add routes if we don't even know the crags/areas are there? --Cick0 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Disagreeing/Opposing

Comments on other topics

I wonder if this proposal could be extended to include tags for corners, roofs, arêtes, cracks, bolts, etc.? Could this then be used to draw climbing topos? I have been looking for a way to implement an augmented reality type of app for climbers and this proposal makes me really excited! --Sudarkoff 08:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also been sitting on the idea of building an augmented reality mobile interface for managing climbing information I put together a site to float the idea at http://craglist.drupalgardens.com/. I must say, I got very excited coming across this OSM development, because prior to this I have been racking my brain about where to store all of the data. --Chainik (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

How would one deal with one boulder block that has multiple routes on it, every one with its own name and grade? multiple nodes on one spot is not ideal, so we need a way to set multiple route names and grades to one node. same applies to different routes with the same start points (same bolts, whatever). but I like the idea of mapping climbing routes, especially if altitute information would be processed in the future (no idea on how the plans of OSM are on that topic) and one would be able to map climbing routes in all 3 dimensions. in addition I miss a way to link topo's or official pages to routes and/or boulders. But I think using OSM to map routes and create topos is very nice. --Marc 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO ele=* should be used on start and end points, this in combination with SRTM data should give enough information to make 3D climbing maps. The multiple route/name problem have several possible solutions, such as ; separated lists or relations (my favourite) --Skippern 00:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I really like this proposal, because I myself thought we needed more features for the hiking/climbing People... But the one thing I ask myself: should we restrict the informations to one grading scale at a time, or should we allow more then one grading information per route? What do we do if some routes intersect each other? (like on this topo: http://www.bergsteigen.at/pic/pdf/1126_Topo_92cf9315-3940-4676-8d21-7043de0842c0_Ratengrat.pdf)

To allow multiple scales for one route make sense, as some grades can't be converted/translated to each other. An extreme example would be one route that is used for ice climbing, free climbing and aid climbing (see Wikipedia: Grade). --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Intersecting routes are no problem if more nodes than just bottom and top are allowed - then it could be mapped like intersecting streets, waterways etc. See "1, 2 or more nodes?" --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Shall crags/sectors pool information that all routes have in common?

Within one crag or one sector of a crag, rock type, bolted or not, orientation etc. might change from route to route, but often, all share the same characteristics. It is quite redundant to repeat this information for all single routes; instead only the "container element" (relation) shall carry those tags, i.e. it shall pool / bundle this information. This makes tagging less annoying and reduces the data size of vector maps. Hence I propose that all information that make sense on routes, sector and crags level is allowed on all 3 levels, not only routes - just like for cross country ski tracks/pistes. What do you think? --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sectors and subsectors

see also "Tags/Rendering"

How should one tag sectors and subsectors in a grag? I started using this proposal in the Setesdal, Norway region and like to tag the grag/sector/subsector. For now I used the relations on the sector level. --Paul.gevers 21:22, 27 August 2010 (BST)

I agree; many big climbing areas/mountains are divided into into sectors, and a sector is divided into crags, that are collections of routes, so we shall have sectors as it is a common grouping element in guide books. E.g. in Finale Ligure (IT), some sectors are hundreds of meters wide, so it is important to have them on the map to choose the correct street for the approach. Personally, I don't remember to have met any sub-sectors, hence I have no idea whether they are relevant enough to require a tag for themselfs. --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Has there been any update on this? I would find it very useful to be able to group everything related to a climbing site into a relation containing crags, access paths, recommended parking, information signs etc. In my local area a few people have used a site relation for that but without any agreed standard that seems futile. --Odiz (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

1, 2 or more nodes?

How do we show the difference between a path/scramble to access the bottom of a route, and one to access the top? We could have separate nodes for the top/bottom of each route (with a way between them), but a lot of the time these nodes would be practically on top of each other... -- Steve Hill 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The top and bottom are unlikely to be in the same place - in my experience the cliffs lean back a fair bit. And if you give yourself only five metres at the top and bottom for walk in/out that'll be far enough to make the nodes separable. Gravitystorm 17:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Even a few cm difference would already suffice that both can be separated in vector maps (e.g. Locus on Adroid mobiles), and even exactly same lon/lat ins not problem in JOSM (middle mouse button). --Schoschi (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: In JOSM we have a scale for values of tags level or layer, so we can e.g. filter to see only data being defined for level 3 and hiding all data defined for level 0. Maybe we could reuse or extend this for vertical ways. --Schoschi (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The page (version of 11:25, 18 March 2013‎) suggests "if there is no top-access to the route, only a single node, marking the start, is probably preferable". I do not agree. All routes shall have at least 2 points, bottom and top, and shall be allowed to have more points. If a mapper knows only 1 point, he/she can set a second point with fixme.

  • Reasons to allow more than 2 points:
    • it allows to map the stands of longer routes.
    • it allows to map one route with several staring and/or ending points
    • it allows to map that 2 climbing routes join for a while somewhere in the middle of the wall and then separate again
  • Reasons to set the minimum to 2 points
    • Did you ever see a climbing route that just had a start and no end? I did not. It is quite natural for a climbing route to have at least 2 nodes, and as a more fundamental aspect, the the second node makes the difference between the mathematical concepts of lines and points ;-)
    • Having 2 points with ele=* information might be used by applications to render, filter etc. the altitude difference - a very interesting information for climbers (e.g. using a mobile device to search a route that fits grade and rope length).
    • Some routes must or may be started in the top, hence 1 point would lead to ambiguous mapping.
    • Quite often, several routes share the same starting point or top bolt. That information is sometimes quite interesting.

--Schoschi (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

When mapping a route as a pair of top/bottom nodes connected by a way, where do the other tags (name, grade, sport/trad, rock etc.) belong? Should a node tagged as climbing=route_bottom EVER have any other tags? (Keeping in mind that two routes might share a start but not an end, or share an end but not a start, or overlap partially, or be connected end-to-end...) --BHSPitMonkey (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

IMHO we may just the same basic principle as for highways etc. so climbing routes may consist of 2 or more nodes, wehere one node may be set per bolt or per crossing of another route or other "relevant" spots. If only one climbing route existis, it may be tagged directly on the way connecting the nodes and the way may carry meta information like name, grade, sport/trad, rock. If multiple climbing routes share parts, they may be mapped as multiple relations that re-use a basic way, just like cross country routes route=ski do re-use existing highways etc. Then, meta information like name, grade, sport/trad, rock as to be mapped as appropriate, e.g. name on the route, rock on the baseic way. --Schoschi (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Relation to other climbing-like sport types

Why don't we tag via ferrata routes? What about indoor climbing? --Uhu01 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, there exist separate proposals for via ferrata proposal (Klettersteig) and climbing --Schoschi (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Indoor climbing should be marked with a sport=* the same counts for similarly built walls outdoors, such as "Uteveggen" in Trondheim, Norway. --Skippern 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


I'm not into climbing but I believe this proposal should also deal with mountain routes and fixed rope routes (Klettersteig). As pointed out here, both are currently often tagged and thus rendered as hiking paths or footways. Either one is clearly inappropriate. Paths and footways accessible for anyone with a reasonable fitness should be clearly separated from routes that require mountaineering skills and safety equipment. Ukuester 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, there exist separate proposals for via ferrata proposal (Klettersteig) and climbing => it shall be taken care of both types and after acceptance, both shall be clearly distinguishable from usual hiking paths after renderers adapted to the new tags --Schoschi (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


I suggest to expand it to rely on climbing parks e.g. climbing forests --!i! 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


more tags

Really like this proposal, but I need more Tags. Has someone an idea

  • how to discribe how a pitch locks like - 2 bolts conneced with a chain / one bolt with a ring / nothing / ...
  • how to map the top bolt of a route - see above

Furthermore I would welcome something like climbing:bolts=bolts count, climbing:nuts=not_allowed/required/not_necessary/number of good positions and climbing:friends=see nuts --K4r573n 23:05, 3 June 2012 (BST)

Personally, I see the benefit to be able to map "exists top bolt for pitch yes/no" (enables filtering, see below) but I do not see the need to tag the different bolt types (in OSM!) as there are soooo many types that it will be quite difficult to create an enumeration of all, and for mappers to select the right one. --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I would also like a "bolt density" information (either bolts count divided by pitch/route length or a tag with average bolt-to-bolt distance) and whether other means besides bolts (like nuts, Monkey's fist or the like are (not) allowed and/or (not) required) as this would allow to automatically filter the routes in a software to those suiting the own physical+psychical+gear limits - very helpful in areas with thousands of routes. --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


Examples

I am interested to see examples of how others have mapped climbing/bouldering areas.

Sources

  • The TagWatch-URL http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=climbing#keys displays all keys containing climbing, then select the one you're interested in to see its values.
  • This overpass URL 
    http://overpass-api.de/api/xapi?node[sport=climbing][@meta]
    returns all elements tagged with sport=climbing with all key-value-pairs of the elements.
  • The link climbing nodes around Finale Ligure (IT) in Overpass-Turbo shall execute the search 
    <query type="node">  <has-kv k="sport" v="climbing"/>  <bbox-query {{bbox}}/></query><print/>
    and display all nodes with sport=climbing on a map. Of course, you can move the map to the area you're interested in.

Crags

The only crag examples I found (other than my additions):

Here is an example of a crag I have added (Fawltey Towers Crag at Silvermine, South Africa):

And this is my try in northern Germany:

Boulder Areas

The only other bouldering examples:

I have followed the approach used in the two above examples and used 'tourism attraction' to ensure that something renders on the standard map.

Here is an example boulder area I added (Cinema Area at Silvermine, South Africa):

Tags/Rendering

Please provide feedback/suggestions/comments on how to proceed adding boulders/crags. I am interested to see other approaches to mapping climbing areas.

It is particularly useful if the OSM can be viewed on a phone with gps so that one can find the climbing areas. I use http://maps.coderminus.com/downloads which is free of charge and does the trick for an android phone. Keith2000 12:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition to natural=cliff I use since a while the (proposed) feature natural=bare_rock.
See as an example: Sierra Nevada del Cocuy
Instead or in addition to climbing=boulder, the approved feature natural=stone can be actually used for boulders.
A new "sector-tag" should be created ("climbing=sector"), in the same way as climbing=crag, but independent because according to local conditions their might be no specific crags - just a long rock wall - , or the routes are related to a side of a peak (example: "north face"), or it can be a boulder area. Of course, also several crags together can belong to one sector
I agree. There should be some "sector" or "area" tag to group boulders, crags, routes, paths, etc to a named climbing area.--Schoaf (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I would propose a tag climbing:area for a relation to group everything. This way a specific area or sector can be situated in a wider area or hill with a name
I agree, climbing area optionally containing sectors containg crags/boulders containing routes. See also "Sectors and subsectors". --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Places for Abseil should also be tagged; to avoid too much new tags this can be done with climbing=route, plus an explicit name.--Federico Explorador 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC).
Sounds good, +1 --Schoschi (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Namespace(s) and Grading

I'm keen to see some sensible tagging schema set up, but I really don't like the laborious namespace system proposed. Why not just (for instance): grade_french=4+, rock_type=limestone etc? csdf 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For grade:french might be used for other extreme sports as well, that might be in the same area, i.e. conflicting tagging. --Skippern 14:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what other sports use a French grading system where this might conflict? csdf 10:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm. If we will always use one relation/route for one sport (e.g. 1 climbing route and 1 via ferrata route sharing 1 way), everything will be fine even without name spaces.
If we allow the tags also directly at the way, I'm quite sure that it will sometimes be unclear which grade does describe which of the two sports unless we use namespaces. Reason: There exist several grading systems for each alpine sport, like for climbing, via ferrata, alpine hiking trails, etc. Those alpine sports are usually possible very very close of each other or even for the same way, e.g. a via ferrata and a climbing route that are going the same way, as I have seen several times at the Austrian/Italian border. If this way is tagges to be climbing and via ferrata, and there is only one grade tag, to which of the two sports does this grade belong? --Schoschi (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Yes, it uses namespaces - I realise this is a contentious issue, but I believe it is the right thing to do in order to create descriptive and non-conflicting tags. -- Steve Hill 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Relations usually come with a type= tag. So we should consider tagging a crag relation with type=crag, or add type=grouping or similar. Other than that, I like the proposal, provided that the climbing: prefix is dropped. Robx 10:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


You're just asking for misspellings if you expect people to type climbing:grade:british:adjectival for each route. Ojw 08:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it just looks cumbersome csdf 10:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just 2 ideas:

  • why not use grade= rather than climbing:grade=? The other tags (climbing=route) show that this grade applies to climbing.
  • can use grade:british=5c or grade:british=HVS as the same tag without conflicting with each other? (aren't they equivalent? the routes would be labelled with one or the other?) Ojw 08:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And where a route is graded with both, you could use grade:british=HVS;5c csdf 10:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


The Fontaine Bleau (Fb) grading scheme for boulders should be added. How about climbing:grade:fb or climbing:grade:bleau oder climbing:grade:fontaine_bleau? --Schoaf (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


Prefered grading system

There is conflicting information in the current section on grades. On the one hand, the introductory text says "Numerous grading systems exist. Map the usual one(s) for the climbing spot, i.e. commonly used ones - grades in other systems can be derived by conversion." The following table has a comment added by Xyz32: "The UIAA system is the system used by the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation and should be preferred over other systems."

Which is the consensus? In practice, UIAA grades are rarely used outside a handful of countries in Europe. Even the UIAA acknowledges that many places don't use UIAA grades . --4b3eff (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, similar to other units, I think it should use the grades local to the area, which is the most authoritative method. Real-world usage:
  • 2958 climbing:grade:uiaa
  • 2595 climbing:grade:saxon:min
  • 886 climbing:grade:uiaa:max
  • 869 climbing:grade:uiaa:min
  • 766 climbing:grade:french:min
  • 753 climbing:grade:french:max
  • 285 climbing:grade:french
  • 192 climbing:grade:polish:max
  • 192 climbing:grade:polish:min
  • 153 climbing:grade:uiaa:mean
  • 134 climbing:grade:yds_class
  • 119 climbing:grade:french:mean
  • 17 climbing:grade:saxon:max
  • 13 climbing:grade:hueco:max
  • 13 climbing:grade:hueco:min
Brightj (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty new here so I'm not sure what the norms are - do we just undo the revision that added the preference for UIAA? Wait some time for Xyz32 to comment? --4b3eff (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, either. Seems like activity is pretty slow around the climbing topic, though, so maybe just taking charge and making decisions is OK? Could ask in other forums, too, like http://community.openstreetmap.org or https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ and see if anyone responds. We could make a #climbing channel on Slack. Brightj (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Xyz32: do you have objections? --4b3eff (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I have made the discussed edit. -- 4b3eff (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

climbing:abseil

After climbing long alpine multi-pitched routes it is often not so easy to descend from the mountain/wall/... you just climbed, sometimes mountain path exist, but sometimes you have to descend by abseiling. Therefore special bolted abseil-pistes exist. I propose climbing=abseil with extra attributes ele, length and pitches. Length reflects the longest distance to abseil, since the rope must be long enough.

Sounds reasonable to also have climbing=abseil as supplement to =route so you can get down again ;-) I guess as values for "pitches" you expect the number of pieces/parts/pitches the abseil piste consists of, just like for routes. IMHO, ele shall again be the entry point elevation, so this time the "upper end" as it's an abseil piste where you shall only go downwards. In consideration of the rest of the discussion, the optional attribute climbing:bolted=yes/no (as proposed for route) would be welcome also -- I would set the (JOSM presets) default to climbing:bolted=yes as most abseil pistes are bolted, but for some few you need some own material. --Schoschi (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for comprehensive tag structure

I've grouped some ideas about the element/tag structure for this feature into a mind-map, (it is based on the mindmup online tool): climbing mind-map or fast but partial view with a picture.

There is also an editable version, in a collaborative session, but you need to log in with a Google account: climbing mind-map editable

Maybe it's not so clear what I meant, you are free to ask or add comment also in the map.

Let me know what you think, I believe it would be good to have an approved feature and a standard way to tag climbing spot.

About tag structure details

Even if it may seem too complex, I think is better to make the standard a little less straightforward and more comprehensive, simpler(not standard) information insertion already in the osm database or not can be easy translate in an hypothetical standard form. I'm also agree, like mentioned in section 2, to specify guidelines to make easy and fast to map rough information about climbing spots.

Merging Tag:sport=climbing page

I was thinking about merging the page Tag:sport=climbing into the this feature page adding a redirect there, because it seem they have a lot to double information between them, is that good practice or not?

Tmmsartor (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For me the situation is difficult to asses without looking at actual usage in detail. I would suggest to make sure that Tag:sport=climbing has correct (reflecting current best usage) information and than see if this proposal has something new to add on top of that or if it is simply obsolete.
Some features have been discussed controversially, like the climbing routes so it would be interesting to know how much they are actually mapped. For me it appears that it would not be a good idea to mix the currently proposed method of climbing routes with the advice to apply sport=climbing to cliffs or buildings. I could imagine highway=climbing_route similar to via_ferrata. So have people mapped climbing routes? How? RicoZ (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly infact I want to make a clear idea about what has already been discussed, and all I found is mainly this three entry the osm wiki:
not really rejected, never went through RFC and voting as far as I can see RicoZ (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
(tell me if I miss something)
And yes it seem people are mapping climbing routes and reasonably they will keep doing that in the future, some link to have an idea:
I'm still not sure what is exactly the currently proposed method of climbing routes. Tmmsartor (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There were also some mailing list threads, recently about access to climbing routes and maybe others. Currently it seems that climbing spots are mapped but not the climbing routes (the actual way up along the rock which is mentioned in the proposal http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=climbing&value=route_top ). The mapping of climbing spots seems fairly solid and needs no improvement except documentation as far as I can see.
As of climbing routes most are almost vertical so can't be mapped in OSM very well but it would be nice to have tagging for those that are not fully vertical and thus could be mapped. The current proposal for climbing=route was apparently used 68 times and much of that may be incorrect usage because route_top was used only 27 times so it can be still changed. For this you could look at Proposed_features/via_ferrata which is in widespread use so it may be better to do something similar to that... basically highway=climbing_route + the "climbing:*" tags which are already defined. RicoZ (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

10 years at draft state

Hi, I wonder if there are any plans to send this proposal to RFC and vote on it?--PangoSE (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Not needed. It was discussed in January 2016 in the ml (search 'Marking climbing proposal as "in use"') and the agreement was pretty clear. What would be helpful is to move it out of proposal space, create wiki pages for the more important tags and a redirect to this for the rest. RicoZ (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Added statistics and related tags

I contacted the original proposer, added some related tags and included relevant statistics on the proposal-page. I intend to adopt the proposal if possible and send it to RFC or failing to do that create a my own proposal and send that to RFC.--PangoSE (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of climbing routes and types

I propose to rewrite the proposal to follow the rest of OSM-route tagging by relation (not speial tags on ways) and tagging of Via Ferrata into this process (2 proposals for tagging of via ferrata exist 1 and 2)

This would create a more complete tagging where we go from hiking->climbing>via_ferrata. This means that hiking is the main activity, climbing a special way of climbing, via ferrata a special way of organizing and equipping yourself and preparing a way with a wire, etc. to ease the passage and provide extra security:

Key Value Element Comment Example Icon
name * nodeway Name of the route  
climbing route_bottom node This is the bottom of a climbing route.  
climbing route_top node This is the top of a climbing route.  
climbing route way This is the route itself (but see the note above).  

To something like this ->

Key Value Element Comment Example Icon
name * relation Name of the route  
role route_bottom relation This is the bottom of a climbing route.  
role route_top relation This is the top of a climbing route.  
route hiking relation This is the route itself (climbing is a special way of hiking often including special preparation for safety reasons, hiking is a way to travel using your body strength without wheels or motor).  
climbing yes relation Type of hiking -> climbing  
climbing:type via_ferrata relation Yes if it is a Via Ferrata route in its entirety  
fee yes/no relation Fee if applicable  

I also propopose we update these tags on ways and relations 

climbing:sport
climbing:boulder
climbing:toprope

To something like

What do you think?--PangoSE (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The second table would be just roles in a relation? Would the ways/nodes be without an own tags? That is kind of against tradition although not technically impossible.
The three existing proposals allow very rich and detailed mapping where each segment can have special properties and segments can be of various types (ferrata, path, path with safety measures, climbing route, bridge, steps, ladder), you would need to clarify how this would work in the new proposal. Also, while a clean start is sometimes a good thing, consider that you would have to convert all objects by hand to the new tagging. I would strongly oppose any kind of (semi)automatic editing for objects like ferratas and climbing routes and doing it without local knowledge is problematic. So I would rather try to preserve at least the better parts of current mapping practice and cautiously develop it to improve where needed. RicoZ (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge with sport=climbing

User:Tigerfell started a merge of climbing and sport=climbing, trying to complete it. What is left to do:

  • verify that everything that was in the old version of sport=climbing [2] is described either here or in sport climbing
  • where necessary clarify which tags apply to climbing routes, climbing sites and both

RicoZ (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Abseil points

Hello I'd like to add climbing:abseil_point to the wiki site. They are points with rings that are specifically made for abseiling. They are quite common in my climbing region. They are quite important because they are often the only way to get back down. And on some bigger and segregated rocks they are sometimes really hard to find There are already a couple in the database and there doesn't seem to be a more commonly used tag for that.

36 occurrences in the database is not that much so perhaps there are other alternatives in use.. would you mind asking on the mailing list or forum to make sure we don't miss some alternative? Btw, please remember to sign your messages on talk pages. RicoZ (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Crags and areas as relations or not

@Xyz32 - you added a section about climbing=area as a collection relation for crags to the wiki page.

First, the page is supposed to document the actual usage of a tag, climbing=area is just used 3 times so far, one of them just created. Thus it is more a draft, probably putting it on the discussion page would have been a better idea.

Further the draft does not say which type the relation should be, one is using type=area, the other type=site.

Finally the question is if climbing=area should be used on relations only, or if they can be used on nodes and ways as well. Looking into climbing=crag that was "prescribed" as relation already on the first 2008 version of the wiki page, however looking into usage we find only 24 relations among 1300 objects, the others more nodes than ways.

--Polarbear w (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I fully support implementing a climbing=area-relation but believe it should be fleshed out much more before putting it on the climbing page. Why not have it contain approaches to the area, recommended parking, etc.(indicated by roles) in addition to crags? --Odiz (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


How should one go about getting the name=* of the climbing=area rendered/searchable when applying it to a relation?
I've been using the type=site relation with climbing=area to group crags (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/38.41251/-9.21016 ). Unfortunately, with this approach the area name doesn't show on OpenCarto and neither can it be found by searching at openstreetmap.org . On the other hand, the crags' names are both searcheable and rendered, because in my use case they are natural=cliff ways and therefore shown on the map. My issue is that the area name is quite important, much more than the crags names.
This all happens because type=site is not rendered by OpenCarto. Other relation types that do get rendered (e.g. type=multipolygon) cannot be applied here.
I've thought about workarounds such as adding a single node near the crags and tagging it with climbing=area plus name=*. Though, I frown upon such thing when the right way to do it is clearly with a relation.
Any ideas on how I should tackle this?
--Dllud (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It is now shown on openclimbing.org --Cick0 (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Mapping buildering spots

What about mapping spots for buildering, i.e. bouldering or rope climbing on man made structures (walls, bridges, towers, ...) originally not intended for climbing? I would propose to just add the sport=climbing + climbing* tags to the nodes/ways. But one should only map spots that are "good" places / regularly used by the climbing community, e.g. those documented in books or other sources. --ChrNeumann (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

this is already outlined in Key:climbing#Climbing_sites. The bouldering section doesn't mention it as it only deals with natural boulders but all other tags apply to both natural and man made sites. RicoZ (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same thing (because you changed the section title to "bouldering" again)? I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buildering. But less the "(illegal) climbing on any building" part but "Although often practised as a solo sport, buildering has also become a popular group activity. As in more traditional rock climbing, routes are established and graded for difficulty.". Possibly more famous in Germany. --ChrNeumann (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
LOL.. we aren't, I thought it was a typo. So climbing the wall of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Luzzone is now called buildering? Anyway, I think the same applies and it should work as described. I guess you could even do kind of bouldering on buildings.
<rant mode on>I hope nobody starts tagging climbing routes on buildings as highway=path+climbing=route+sac_scale=XXX+bicycle=no+climbing:grade:... ???<rant mode off> RicoZ (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Permit

When a climbing facility is inside a Protected Area, usually a permit is mandatory to use it. I think it will be fine to add a reference to access=permit at the end of the additional information table for this purpose.

--Javiersanp (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Cliffs as part of crags?

I'm mapping my local climbing area as a site relation and trying to figure out what features to include in each crag relation (also a site relation). So far I've mapped two crags in the area with their routes. Should the natural=cliff, approaches, or other features be added to the crag relation or just the routes themselves? --Adamfranco (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


Adamfranco, I have been adding cliffs and boulders to relations with climbing=crag representing small areas and grouping those relations with their associated approaches, parking, toilets, etc in relations with climbing=area. For example, [3], [4], [5]. The wiki could definitely use some clarification of normal practice here! -- 4b3eff (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification about bolts / anchors

It would be useful to add the locations of fixed abseil/rappel anchors, especially if you have to walk to them after topping out the climb. The page says:

  • climbing:bolts=* yes / no / <nr of bolts> Are there fixed anchors? If so, how many bolts are there? How much gear is needed?

I interpreted this to mean "Is there a bolted anchor at the top of the climb, and if so how many bolts does it have?" (Typically 2, but sometimes 3 and apparently in other countries it's sometimes 1.) So this would apply to a trad climb with bolts at the belay station, for instance, or dedicated rappel rings at the top.

But then it says:

  • climbing:bolted=* yes / no / <average bolt distance in meters> Are there fixed anchors? If so, what is their average distance (by default in meter, other units overview)? Provides a first indication how well the routes are secured.

Meters between bolts implies that we're talking about bolts on the route itself (a sport climb). In US, those aren't usually called "anchors", only the ones at the top of the climb are the anchor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_(climbing)

(I experimentally added climbing:chains=2 or =0 to a few nodes, but I'm rethinking that now.)

Some of this is already possible to specify and the rest should be:

  • Are there bolts on the climb itself?
    • Are there enough bolts on the climb itself to be a sport climb, or is it mixed trad?
  • Is there a fixed anchor?
    • Is it at the top of a climb?
    • Is it a lone anchor I need to walk to? (Connected by walking path to the tops of climbs)
    • Does it only have bolt hangers?
    • Does it have chains or rappel rings to rappel from (untying first)?
    • Does it have mussy hooks or ram's horns for lowering off of without untying (or do I need to bring rappelling gear)?

Brightj (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that this section needs to be reviewed. As of now, it is indeed a bit confusing.
> Meters between bolts implies that we're talking about bolts on the route itself (a sport climb). In US, those aren't usually called "anchors", only the ones at the of the climb are the anchor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_(climbing)
In Europe, we also call anchor only the "chain" or an anchoring point that connects to or more bolts or other natural features (such as trees, holes or flakes). My suggestion would be changing climbing:bolt=* into climbing:anchor=* to specify the type of anchor with values like yes / abseil / tree etc ...
However, we should also consider that an abseil/rappel could also be used during an assisted_trail=*, or via ferrata so it would be even better to use a separate tag that does not require sport=climbing.
Something like protection=anchor that can be used on a node along a way tagged highway=path or highway=via_ferrata. Tepepaz (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


It would be great if Climbing#Climbing_routes had a diagram showing a route with some bolts along it and rappel anchor at the end and the tags used for each. Brightj (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually we are working on this feature in openclimbing.org. We use OSM to store all data about routes and only images are saved in Wikimedia commons. We don't use any other private database.

Any contributions are welcomed! Jvaclavik (talk) 9:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with the topic? Brightj (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I didn't read carefully, I was thinking that you are discussing you'd like to have diagram of the route with marked bolts, anchors, etc. Jvaclavik (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


I mean on Climbing#Climbing_routes there should be a diagram showing a route and how each node and way is tagged, to help clarify the difference between climbing=bolt climbing:bolt=* climbing:bolts=* climbing:bolted=* etc. Brightj (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Linking to Mountain Project, TheCrag, SummitPost, etc.

I've asked about linking to multiple sites here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:url#Multiple_URLs

I wonder if we should do it similar to photos:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Photo_linking#Mapping

https://kletterspots.de/ asks for an (unofficial) website and adds it with the `url=` tag, and it looks like https://mapcomplete.osm.be does the same. But it seems wrong to link to only one, giving that one site more prominence than others. Brightj (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it OK to just add this to the wiki? Brightj (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Adding it to the wiki would seem consistent with Any tags you like if the tags are already in use. However, so far most uses are from me trying it out and I probably won't be adding many more until I have looked into an alternative: adding a single wikidata ID. OSM already has guidelines for linking to wikidata and wikidata already has a Mountain Project ID in use. It looks like adding other IDs and climbing routes would meet their notability requirements. There is also the question raised by watmildon of whether to tag with just the respective IDs rather than the whole url. -- 4b3eff (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I asked about tagging with just the IDs, too. :D
I'm not sure I understand the wikidata argument. Could we not just put all data about a place on wikidata and just link to it? I don't think anyone wants that. So why just URLs? Brightj (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Just URLs because wikidata seems better for coordinating identifiers on different platforms. This might be my personal priorities showing though - I would like to see a mapping between different data sources. It does seem that a few people are already adding wikidata IDs for climbing areas and/or routes. See for example The Nose and this overpass query.
Of course these aren't mutually exclusive, I'm just unsure which would be my personal priority. - 4b3eff (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Brightj and 4b3eff: Consider proposing a place-related Wikidata property of type "external identifier" to hold the IDs of entries on the major sites. An external reference statement automatically qualifies an item as notable. External identifiers are expected to be as brief as possible while preserving the ability to construct the actual URL. Until such properties are created, feel free to link to the full URL in a described at URL (P973) statement or in a reference's reference URL (P854) statement.

Linking to Wikidata doesn't necessarily preclude tagging some of the same data redundantly in OSM. Some mappers prefer to use OSM as a scratchpad for items they'll later create in Wikidata. Whether to tag IDs or URLs in OSM depends on how easy it is to use the IDs. For example, if Mountain Project's entry for the ID 106095770 is located at https://www.mountainproject.com/area/106095770, then storing just the numeric ID makes the data more resilient to changes that the site may make to its URLs in the future, especially if the old URLs don't redirect to the new ones. But if the ID doesn't help you access the entry while the URL does, then the URL is arguably the more interesting thing to tag.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the perspective Minh Nguyễn - I'll continue with Brightj's suggestion until I work out how/if to use wikidata. -- 4b3eff (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


Some areas already have links with url=*. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/878718158 uses url=https://www.thecrag.com/en/climbing/switzerland/alpen/graubunden/area/1504823181. --4b3eff (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Combination with leisure=pitch

Many climbing sites are tagged with leisure=pitch and sport=climbing (~3600 as of October 2023). As far as I can tell, this is supposed to mean “The general location of natural or man made climbing sites”, which can simply “be marked with sport=climbing”. So leisure=pitch seems redundant. It also sounds confusing because it’s not used in the climbing sense of a section between belays, and I’m not sure a pitch can even apply to a climbing site.

Should this leisure=pitch tag simply be removed in those instances? And maybe added as a possible mistake to the Climbing page, or to sport=climbing?

--Pisurquatre (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pitch#Etymology_2 says that "cricket pitch" and "multi-pitch climb" have the same etymology, but I'm not sure that makes the tag relevant. Brightj (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Right, it doesn’t look like the leisure=pitch tag was ever designed for “(multi-pitch) climbs”. Looking at this a bit more, using simply sport=climbing for general sites is not rendered by osm.org, and neither is the climbing=area relation. That relation is little used anyway. So I assume the pitch tag is used as a workaround to at least have something rendered.
I don’t know what the best way to have a site appear on the map would be: have the climbing=area relation itself be rendered as a POI? Have it be usable as a node, marking the approximate centre of a site? Pisurquatre (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I've also seen leisure=sports_centre for outdoor crags, which seems wrong: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:sport%3Dclimbing#Is_it_OK_to_remove_leisure=sports_centre_from_natural_crags?
Seems like Tagging_for_the_renderer, but I'm not sure. Brightj (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Climbing Gyms

I'm not sure how a climbing gym would be marked. The Climb the World app has an option to add an artificial climbing location but, since the upload does not work, I can't tell what tags it uses. Should this simply be another crag? --Cick0 (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

See Tag:leisure=sports_centre#Indoor for instance. Brightj (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd assume that using `leisure=sports_hall` is also ok if the sports centre is larger and includes pitches for multiple other sports? --Cick0 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
According to the Tag:leisure=sports_hall page: yes indeed! —M!dgard (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Multi-Pitch

How are multi-pitch routes supposed to be mapped? They are normally a single route only and not really part of any crag. But consist of several sections. --Cick0 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding every pitch as a climbing route is probably a good option. The whole multi-pitch route could be stored as a relation including the selected pitches. The route can also include the paths in between, if any. --Cick0 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.
We should make sure to have tags to map an anchor point and to mark whether one can abseil there, and how long the abseil is. And tags for ways connecting abseil points.
Perhaps we could also use tags to mark a route as requiring climbing to approach it (typical in multi-pitches of course but I know some routes that are not considered part of a standard multi-pitch but require a first pitch to be done).
I also know extended non-multi-pitch routes where you can climb 50 meter in one go, descend normally to an intermediate anchor point at 30 meter high, secure with lifeline and pull the rope through, and descend again. You only need a 70 meter rope for that instead of 100 meter. Not the same as multi-pitch but can be taken into account when designing a tagging scheme. —M!dgard (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Via Ferrata

Should we also include `via_ferrata`s into climbing crags/areas? I think it would be a fun addition. --Cick0 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There's already highway=via_ferrata, or do you mean something else? —M!dgard (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarify climbing:restriction

@Jvaclavik: you introduced climbing:restriction=* in revision 2695357, explained in broken English as "Indicates if climbing route is allowed to climb by some local authority", but what does that actually mean? Is climbing:restriction=restricted to mark that the authorities forbid climbing here? Is access=no not sufficient for that? Is partly that some routes of an area/crag are closed, while others can be climbed? If nothing else, we should at least explain this in the table.

climbing:restriction:time_description=* is not really how other similar things are mapped. Probably this should be changed to climbing:restriction:conditional=restricted @ (Jan 01-Jun 30), access:conditional=no @ (Jan 01-Jun 30) or just opening_hours=open; Jan 01-Jun 30 off "breeding season" (the latter is already even documented on the page!) —M!dgard (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @M!dgard:, good points. Ad is enought access=no? - It's probably possible to use it this way, but I'm not 100% sure if it has the same meaning. How I understand it with access=no is tells you are not able to reach the place or something similar, but it doesn't tell you explicitly that you shouldn't climb it because of some local law like "bird nesting" or "national park". But in matter of unification, it could make sense to use it.
climbing:restriction:time_description is not really how other similar things are mapped – Sorry, I'm quite newbie in proposing new tags. I didn't find better solution so I came up with this one. We can definitely update it if this is the way how it's usually marked. I think there are not many occurrences.
We use these restrictions for example here: https://openclimbing.org/relation/17642361#17.00/49.9707/14.1371 —jvaclavik (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
No worries!
Hey, that's a cool site.
According to its wiki page, access=* is actually for legal permissions/restrictions, not for practical access.
OpenStreetMap has a standard syntax for times and date ranges (it's used for example in opening_hours=* and :conditional=*). If you parse it (there are libraries for that), you could show the date range in the language of the user instead of only Czech. If we standardize some reasons (breeding season, nature conservation, unstable rock, unsafe rock that first needs maintenance), you could even show those in the language of the user.
I'd have to think about what tags I would suggest concretely. —M!dgard (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds really good to me! It's looks like much better solution than I used before. Let me know with the proposal and we can refactor it. Also I'm glad you like the website! The goal is to create user friendly and fully open climbing guide with drawings saved in OSM and photos in wikimedia commons. In case you are interested, check this article. —jvaclavik (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climbing&oldid=2788353"