Proposal talk:Safety measures on hiking trails

Why a separated proposal?

The proposal for Via_Ferrata already deals with mountain trails which are not classified as a "Via Ferrata", yet are equipped with technical means to increase ease and security for climbers. Indeed it prescribes ("Note: Use highway=path and not highway=via_ferrata") that the tag via_ferrata_scale=0 should be used for this kind of trails. I think that making a totally new proposal to describe further details is confusing. Furthermore, I find the title of this proposal a bit misleading: the described technical means are not only provided for safety, but are also intended to be used to make climbing easier. I suggest to add the new values introduced by this proposal (safety_rope, rungs, safety_rope_side) directly to the current proposal for Via_Ferrata. The value safety_rope, doesn't mentions chains (see for example [1]). Should it be edited to include chains, or should chains deserve an additional value? They basically serve the same purposes, but I think the chains are more intended for lifting, while ropes/cables mainly to help keep balance or provide anchorage for safety devices. --Kaitu 17:07, 20 September 2012 (BST)

misleading title: OK my english is not the best. I don't found a better one. I think chains are a sort of safety_rope. I expand the definition of safety_rope for chains. Why a seperate proposal: Because this is not for Via Ferratas. The Via Ferrata Proposal is focused on Via Ferratas, this is focused on hiking trails. OK, i haven't read the hole proposal for Via Ferratas, so i haven't read this note about via_ferrata_scale=0. Maybe I ask the owner of this proposal to merge both (but it is from user=*?) If he expand his proposal with this, OK, if not, then this is a supplement. unixasket 08:47, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

it's mostly me ;-). After reading your proposal, I now think that we shouldn't merge the via_ferrata proposal and safety measures on hiking path. Of course, both share a lot of common things, but since people to use different words for them, I don't think we should, at osm, merge what people don't confuse when they are talking about it. However, it doesn't mean that we could share ideas and tags (like ladder or safety_rope_side) sletuffe 12:46, 27 September 2012 (BST)

see also

About merge with Via Ferrata Proposal: Talk:Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Merge_with_other_Proposal.3F

yes/no/lenght

I don't like the fact that those tags can be yes or no or a value in meters. First, why would we want a no ? If there is no ladder, just don't say that there isn't, there allready isn't a ladder if you don't say anything ! Then, I would propose that the lenght of the rope, height of ladder be added in another tag.

Here is my proposal :

Main classification of safety equipement

Key	Value	Element	Description	Example
safety_equipement	yes		An unspecified equipement to improve safety
safety_equipement	rope		A rope to hold on to (not made with metal)
safety_equipement	chain		A cable or chain to hold on to (Metal made)
safety_equipement	ladder		A ladder
safety_equipement	rungs		Rungs, stemples, pins

super details

Key	Value	Element	Description
length	length in meters		The length of the rope, chain, (ladder ?)
height	height in meters		The elevation difference between the begining and end of the safety equipement

The problem I see with your proposal is, that there will be conflicts if there is a ladder and a rope for example. safety_equipment=ladder;rope is very hard to analyse. Also ladder=yes|no|length in meter is already used. Aighes 13:10, 1 October 2012 (BST)

I delete the value no, but for the rest of your proposal see the comment from aighes. unixasket 08:08, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

All right, let it this way then. I still find it weird, but it shouldn't hurt that much. sletuffe 11:21, 2 October 2012 (BST)