Talk:Proposed features/high rope course

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Propose sport=high_ropes_course

sport=high_ropes_course would make it easier to distinguish it from sport=climbing. -- Mktravel (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is leisure=high_ropes_course marked as deleted in the Tagging section, in favour of sport=high_ropes_course ? Sport is something done regularly, while these rope courses are an occasional leisure adventure. On the other hand, there is also a proposal for sport=climbing_adventure --Polarbear w (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, one user did it without much discussion as one of his first and last edits to the wiki ( I would like to have some more opinions on this. RicoZ (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You can find much discussion here about sport climbing. In short, high ropes course (horizontal movement) are not sport climbing (vertical movement) and should not be tagged with sport=climbing. For the naming I prefer the later suggested climbing_adventure over high_ropes_course.

Taken the definition of sport from wikipedia high ropes course is a sport: Sport are all forms of usually competitive physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing entertainment to participants, and in some cases, spectators.

--Mktravel (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose high_ropes_course:type=*

Having a "type=*" tag for the type of course is too vague. It should really be "high_ropes_course:type=*". Other than that, the proposal looks good to me --Danstowell (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If we use the key "high_ropes_course" for the type, we can drop the ":type". sport=high_ropes_course + high_ropes_course=indoor. (It is the same scheme like highway=cycleway + cycleway=track) --MasiMaster (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


I would tag the ways with highway=rope_course to draw a map of them (analogous to highway=via_ferrata which has some 12000 uses now), with additional attributes describing the details of sections (height above ground, which kind of equipment required, typeof (singlerope, 2 or 3 parallel ropes, vertical/horizontal ladders etc), possibly sac_scale. See also Proposed_features/via_ferrata for more inspiration.. I think the two features share a lot.

There is also already approved bridge=yes+bridge:structure=simple-suspension for "Tibetan" bridges, could get some additional attributes. RicoZ (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How about also adding zip_lines to the proposal? They are long enough to be drawn as ways.. highway=zip_line ? RicoZ (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


In order to use the ropes course, you have to book it or pay, at the enclosing facility. I see this as with of "high_ropes_course". Brycenesbitt (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

5 years in draft state

Is this proposal abandoned? Is there a plan to finish it and start a RFC?--PangoSE (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The tag is being used.--Polarbear w (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)