Thanks Graeme
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 13:20, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2. Does the AWTGS system apply more to routes than way segments? For > example a longer route loop might have a higher grade than a shorter loop > even if they overlap for parts. Would you then only apply AWTGS on a > route=hiking relation, or do you also tag on each way but only set the > higher grade to the parts of the walk which go beyond the easier shorter > sections (based on the example)? > Threads have crossed :-(, but as per their instructions that I mentioned in the other post, the track overall is tagged to the highest classification, so per the example they give: Example: Wineglass Bay, Tasmania The technical assessment of the Wineglass Bay Lookout Walk is then translated into plain English. NOTE: Time is the land manager’s best estimate of the amount of time a person of average fitness, walking in good conditions, will take to complete the walk. Time does not describe difficulty. Because this is a Grade 3 walk a high/low estimate is not required Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Symbol Distance Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to Distance to complete walk is 2.4km. complete walk. xx km complete walk. xx km complete walk. xx km complete walk. xx km Gradient Flat. Gentle hills. Short steep hills. Very steep. Very steep and difficult. Quality of path Well formed track. Formed track. Formed track, some obstacles. Rough track, many obstacles. Rough unformed track. Quality of markings Clearly sign posted. Clearly sign posted. Sign posted. Limited signage. No directional signage. Experience Required No experience required. No experience required. Some bushwalking experience recommended. Experienced Bushwalkers. Very experienced bushwalkers. Time High and low estimate of time needed to complete track (eg 1.5-2hrs). High and low estimate of time needed to complete track (eg 1.5-2hrs). Time needed to complete track (hours/days) 1.5hrs. Time needed to complete track (hours/days). Time needed to complete track (hours/days). Steps No steps. Occasional steps. Many steps. N > The main reason I don't like the AWTGS is because it conflates > independent measures like surface, gradient, distance, navigational > difficulty, remoteness/preparedness. I think the ideally tagging system > would tag these attributes independently and then you could automatically > calculate an overall grade based on the highest value. > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:45, <ianst...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >> I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading >> System. It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire >> Management - >> https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system). >> The AWTGS defines 5 track grades. >> >> >> >> It appears to have been adopted by National Parks here in WA, NT, SA, QLD >> and NSW, and Bush Walking Australia. >> >> >> >> I have tagged a few tracks (where there were officially signed with a >> “Class”) as “awtgs=” (however someone in Germany has since deleted those >> tags without reference to me!) >> >> >> >> Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 is titled “Walking Tracks, Part 1: >> Classification and signage”. However, I don’t have a subscription to read >> the contents of this standard to see how it compares with the AWTGS. Other >> documentation I have seen refers to the AS scheme as having 6 levels >> >> >> >> Ian >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
