Yes the higher hiking scales T5/T6 overlap with the easier mountains climbing scales. T5/T6 can btw have easy glacier parts and aT4 can also have no visible path. For the visibility there is the Key:visibility. What other users and maps do with the data is not our responsibility. Some areas have more T5/T6 hikes mapped Vanoise is indeed incomplete and a bit empty in some areas.

Hallo BvLJg,

Thanks for the reply. Maybe the whole route was graded in OSM on a too easy grade. Furthermore people themselves are responsible for their own safety. OSM is not perfect but also not responsible. (the corrects tags is the way too go, not removing paths). The rest is not relevant.

For dangerous aspects there are tags in OSM. (OSM does not remove hikes were people died due to rockfall) Like I said T5/T6 can already have climbing sections. (see sac-scale wiki)

Splitting it up and grading it correctly is the best we can do.
If you dont want to do that than that is fine of course. But maybe you would like to do that? Otherwise I will do that. That gets us back to the original question.

1) How would you grade the different sections ? (Than we know/see of we have a difference of opinion)
2) Removing the glacier section is fine.

Hallo BvLJg,

The section west of the Dôme des Sonnailles is not so hard and only a T5/T6 first/second grade climbing would be more accurate. Removing paths in OSM is not good. The right tags (which inform users about the dangers) would be a better solution A higher sac-scale and the correct UIAA grade would work here. Could/would you like to revert your changeset and/or split the section in different parts and grade them correctly. Many thanks.

Okay thanks. Now I understand what you mean. I did not use multiply sources so that wasn’t an issue. Furthermore I don’t think anybody would mind if one line consist out of multiply sources. Other users can’t see what sources you used from these lines nor from or changesets or the map itself. Just adding a note with information to the area’s is a lot better for that. Splitting everything doesn’t look clean at all and has only cons. It also makes future mapping harder. That is a lot more important.
Anyways thanks for the information.

Happy mapping.

Hallo Pan,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t really understand the reply but maybe I am just missing something. If a whole area (in this case a forest and a meadow) is made out of one line or many lines does not change the position of the nodes which form the boundary of them. (and determines the quality) You and the other OSM users are of course free to add/move/change nodes over any length they can and want to improve. (1meter 10 meter 100 meter is of course not up to me to determine) A little to the side there is a fence and a strip of grass/scrub between the meadow and the forest. That is now half on one line half on the other. Stuff like that. The line than needs to become forest/grass or meadow/grass. Its all a bit of a hassle in my opinion. Furthermore I don’t understand why it is for example important that you took satellite imagery as a source for the first 100 meters and somebody else took on the ground knowledge or gps or whatever for the next 100 meters. Why should that cause a split? Why does different source/ quality matter?
I for example have never splitted a road at the end of what I changed just because I only know 1 km of a 10 km road. It just creates more work. (even if I think that my 1 km is good and the other 9 km needs a lot of improvement)

In short leaving everything as one line does not change the quality of nodes you added but enables easy mapping and a clear and clean view of everything. I still don’t see the benefit of splitting ( I do not have a question about the place and or quality of the nodes themselves)

I will see what I will do near Gsteig. Maybe I can find some info about this method online.
If you could elaborate a little than that would be great.

Thanks

Beau

Hallo Pan,

I see that the boundary between the meadow and the forest near Gsteig bei Gstaad now consists of multiple outers. Originally, these were simply two areas, each with a single line. What is the benefit of having multiple outers ? On one side, I’d like to add another area. This is now a lot harder is it possible to reconnect the outers for that ?
I look forward to hearing from you. (you can also respond in French)

Kind regards,
Beau

Hallo Pan,
ich sehe, dass die Grenze zwischen der Wiese und dem Wald bei Gsteig bei Gstaad jetzt aus mehreren ‘outers‘ besteht. Ursprünglich waren das einfach zwei Flächen, jeweils mit einer Linie.
Was ist der Vorteil daran, mehrere ‘outers‘ zu verwenden?
An einer Seite möchte ich gerne ein weiteres Gebiet hinzufügen kann man dafür die ‘outers‘ wieder verbinden? Jetzt ist das schwieriger.
Ich freue mich auf deine Rückmeldung. ( Eine Antwort auf Französisch ist auch in Ordnung)

Beste Grüße,
Beau

Hey Map47,
Thanks for the links. It would be nice to integrate that kind of information directly into OSM. I don't always check OSMI afterwards. I can imagine that there are more fun things for other mappers than checking areas and things of other people. On the map itself it does not realy look 'wrong' but maybe thats because I look at it just from the OSM map and with ID. If you dont like to fix my mistakes than you could always send a message. or put a note on the map. But maybe you do like to fix these things. I btw need fix some small things in the vicinity but thats a different topic. Anyways. Thanks for the links and if you have other tips than I would love to hear them too. You too happy mapping

Hallo Map47,
Thanks for noticing my mistake and improvement. I made some wrong clicks. It seems that you are systematically searching an area in OSMI or something like that. Do you know if it is possible to integrate OSMI into OSM so that errors can be found immediately. OSM itself does not give an error message. Thanks in advance.

Hallo Jenseblume,
Danke für die Antwort.
Was ich gemacht habe, könnte man vielleicht halbwegs als Micro-Mapping bezeichnen.
Dass nicht alle das gerne machen (oder mittlerweile lieber andere Dinge machen), kann ich gut verstehen.
Ich lasse selbstverständlich keine Fläche verloren gehen.
Das meiste ist und bleibt Wiese.
Ebenfalls viel Spaß beim Mappen!

Hallo Jenseblume Ich habe diese Wiese in Teile aufgeteilt und die Straßen und Gärten aus den Wiesen entfernt. Jetzt liegen zwei Flächen übereinander. Ich kann die einzelnen Flächen noch zu einem Multipolygon zusammenführen. Sollte etwas nicht stimmen oder Wenn etwas verbessert werden kann, würde ich gerne davon erfahren? Straßen und solche Sache mache ich dann später.

Hallo Roland,

Ich habe die Grenze des Flughafens von der bestehenden Straße getrennt. Diese geklebten Beziehungen sind etwas schwierig zu bearbeiten. Sagen Sie mir Bescheid, wenn etwas nicht stimmt.

Hello Map47, Thanks for the reply. Your link is clear. If I understand correctly not a single edge should be inner and outer at the same time? What I did at
way/354322295 is than also not good because I should trace around the building. What I did at Anderhalbacherstrasse 24 is than better but that does not require a multipolygon. Right? I did not get any warning of OSM and I am not familiar with OSMI but I will change it around Feutersoey.

Hey Map47. What did you change? What could I have done better directly? I would like to know for the other houses and places.

Hey. Is the land around Feutersoey used as farmland or is used as a meadow ? I did not see any plowing going on. Thanks in advance.

Ich denke, der nördliche Teil von Feutersoey sollte landuse=industrial sein. Bei der Gewerbestrasse.

Ich denke, dass es westlich des Rellerigrats auch viel Wald und kein scrub gibt. Kann ich dass anpassen ?

Ich denke, dass es westlich des Rellerigrats auch viel Wald und kein scrub gibt. Kann ich dass anpassen ?

Hey. Bij slecht weer is inderdaad alles wat lastiger maar daarmee veranderd de beoordeling niet. Nu stond er T5 demanding_mountain_hiking. (van T5 naar T3 is nogal een behoorlijk verschil) Dat zal jij daar wellicht hebben neergezet of hebben overgenomen van wat er al stond. (dat is nu ook niet meer relevant) Op Hikr zijn de meeste beoordelingen T3 of T4 en op de Zwitserse wandelkaart https://map.wanderland.ch/ is het ook blauw-wit dus T4. Ik maak er dus alpine_hiking T4 van. Verder zag ik nog dat sommige trajecten wat lang waren en dan een en dezelfde beoordeling kregen. Concreet zou wat mij betreft van 1878 tot de suggiturm augstmatthorn ook T3 moeten zijn het gedeelte rondom de tannhorn met T4 is oke. Wannepass tot de Chruterepass is denk ik max t4. en verder naar het oosten tot de Brienzer Rothorn max T3. mocht jij daar anders over denken hoor ik het graag.

Hey Martin Borsje. Het deel tussen de Augstmatthorn en de Blasenhubel is nu een T5 demanding_mountain_hiking. Dat lijkt mij wat overdreven. Ik vond dit zelf een makkelijke T4. Wellicht zelfs T3+. T4 (alpine_hiking) lijkt mij prima ? Hoe zie jij dat ?

Grüezi Habi,

You are right. My mistake. Building=ger or building=tent would also be fine with me.
One tipi is called Ariane and the other Kiona. But you are right there are no signs.
There is a small boardwalk leading to one tipi and both tipi’s have a ring of wood chips around them. (but those things are just small details see site.)
B&B InsTipi (bnb-instipi.ch)
It can be changed.

I also noticed that the tipi in Müntschemier ( and a few other tipi’s) where not yet drawn on the map. But that’s for another day.
Greetings,
Beau