what about (official) sledding hills (piste:type=sled) with no grooming at all? wouldn't it make sense to use piste:grooming=no instead of piste:grooming=backcountry? --Stefanct 11:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Confusing definition of piste:grooming=classic
The current definition of "piste:grooming=classic" doesn't make sense: it refers to two entirely different types of grooming based on whether a trail is designated as nordic or alpine, a distinction that is frequently blurred when alpine and nordic areas share a mountain (Howelsen Hill in Steamboat Springs, CO, and Mont Sainte-Anne in Quebec come to mind). A user changing simply the piste:type designation without updating piste:grooming as well could lead to problems for skiers using the map and vice versa.
The current "piste:grooming=classic" definition is additionally problematic because it doesn't create a good sense of conditions on the ground, even for non-skiers. In practice, piste:type=nordic; piste:grooming=skating" and "piste:type=downhill; piste:grooming=classic" are effectively the same surface—a wide swath of snow compressed and flattened into smooth, regular corduroy, without specific parallel tracks set for classic skiing.
I would highly recommend the existing piste:grooming=downhill for alpine-tagged trails groomed in this fashion. If it makes sense to have it combined with a nordic grooming designation, it should be skating, not classic; the least-confusing option from a user POV might be a "piste:grooming=corduroy" tag that applies, irrespective of piste:type designation.
classic+skating vs. classic;skating
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Piste_Maps#classic.2Bskating_vs._classic.3Bskating --Klumbumbus (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)