Talk:Proposed features/IMBA Trail Difficulty Rating
Is it better to use this for linear (the different parts of a route) or a relation (the route itself)? Gustavf 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm a lazy bastard, and would prefere being close to sac_scale, what about mtb_scale instead of mtb_difficulty ?
- One less risk of spelling dificulty, difficulti, difficelty, etc.
- one closer step to sac_scale so easy to remember
This is not very important ! If no one agree with me, I have no problems to make an effort, and probably editors could help there Sletuffe 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Values are, on the opposite, much better to my mind than complex mountain_hiking mountain_alpine_hiking_so_hard of the sac_scale, so I would happily keep those. Here is a table to start with ( Feel free to edit, or to copy it ):
|Tag||MTB Scale||Trail width||Average Steepness||Obstacles|
The Image proposed is quite good to my mind, no need to re-invent the wheel, emply block should be completed by what is in the picture Sletuffe 15:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Downhill / uphill
It has been said, and re-said, mtb is not the same when you climb or when you go downhill
What about a :
Sletuffe 15:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
mtb only or wider scale ?
I have no idea about this one, but the scale starts with easiest, and I think there might be even easier trails (think of a flat track with 0.002m gravels )
What about replacing easierst by more_easy, very_easy and extremely_easy ??
do we have to get a thought for other bicycle users ? what about thinking "wide" and have a general scale for the difficulty for any bicycle ? Sletuffe 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree on move to mtb_scale
I think all points mentioned here are interesting to consider. Can directional difficulty be made implicit? The scale should start with a normal gravel road and equal as the easiest, this is where you typically don't bring a racing bicycle at all, but everyone can ride it. -- vibrog 11:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)