Hallo pascaltippelt,
es gibt in der Sächsichen Schweiz jede Menge Pfade (insbesondere Kletterzustiege, aber auch Wanderwege, die an einem Abgrund langgehen und teilweise mit Ketten, Klammern oder Stahlseilen gesichert sind.
Das hat aber alles nichts mit einem Klettersteig zu tun! Ein Klettersteig ist speziell für diesen Sport gemacht und erfordert auch die Ausrüstung dafür - "Climbing equipment" ist da völlig fehl am Platz, dort bräuchte man Klettersteig-Ausrüstung.
Und selbst wenn man eine kurze seilversicherte Passage unbedingt als Klettersteig definieren wöllte, ist die Einstufung völlig daneben. Hast Du schon mal einen Klettersteig gemacht? Was eine via_ferrata_scale=4 bedeutet, kannst Du zum Beispiel hier:
https://www.cehceh.de/ferrata/bilder/DSE_7772n.jpg
oder hier:
http://www.cehceh.de/ferrata/bilder/b08-828n.jpg
oder hier:
http://www.cehceh.de/ferrata/bilder/DSE_7859n.jpg
oder hier:
https://www.xctrails.org/trailimages/bd359eb6-4a42-4c39-9c29-4e1476650aa1/P1170109n%20(medium).jpg
ansehen.
Der Terrassenweg würde wahrscheinlich nicht mal das Kriterium für via_ferrata_scale=1 erfüllen.
Also nochmal die Bitte: Mach das rückgängig.
Viele Grüße
Matthias

via_ferrata_scale=4 ?? Was soll denn dieser Unsinn?
Das ist ein Pfad! Und da braucht man auch keine Kletterausrüstung und mit einem Klettersteig hat es schon gar nichts zu tun!
Bitte rückgängig machen!

Hi mcliquid,
thanks for the hint! Normally I keep my change sets local - in this case I stupidly summarized corrections of osmose errors.
I will keep this in mind in the future!
Best regards!

Hallo zurück,
nein, der Pool ist privat.
Das Problem kannte ich bisher aus anderen Gegenden so nicht - da wird das Private offensichtlich aus dem Kontext als gegeben angenommen.
Aber kein Problem, ist geändert!
Grüße
Matthias

Thank you very much!
I'll check it out when we get back from the Alps in a couple of weeks :-)

XCTrails is updated every 2-3 days; at time I don't see any change.
Ragardless of XCTrails I see a big problem in that the main relation is no longer shown completely if I call relation/10588521 (only one sub-relation is now shown). But such links I and others use for reference to the complete via ferrata which is no longer possible in the case of so called "super relation".
As far as I know, these are actually only used for very long and complex routes (traffic connections, long-distance cycle paths, ...).
As far as I can see, your enhancement mainly concerns the color coding of the routes. Why not define the color as a property of the individual segments?
In this respect, I would very much welcome a return to a simple relationship :-)

Hi supsup,

Yes, I know, the tagging of via ferratas is a long-discussed but never conclusively clarified topic.
At least the mentioned proposal has been accepted in many cases.
I'm looking at and tagging via ferratas in eastern Germany, France and also the Czech Republic for many years and I am in discussion with other via ferrata mappers (e.g. Arminus, sannorra).

We use the following approach for routes and relations:
- Dividing route sections into a relation as soon as different difficulties, elements or variants occur
- Naming of variants in all sections of this variant
- always "highway=via_ferrata", if only accessible with equipment
- always "via_ferrata_scale" at each individual element (variants, emergency exits, bridges, ...) and for the relation (we have mostly considered the more difficult variant, but not bypassable short extreme variants); this tag is evaluated in XCTrails and displayed in color
- "route=via_ferrata" + "climbing=route" + "type=route" for relations
- "osm.wiki/Tag:name=..." for relations and, if known, for the individual sections and variants (also displayed individually in XCTrails)
- optional "osm.wiki/Tag:fee=...", "osm.wiki/Tag:access=..." and "osm.wiki/Tag:access:conditional=..." for fee obligation, blocking or access only as a customer, seasonal blocking (the latter is displayed in XCTrails with a cross through it depending on the time).

No standards or best practices are officially available for the starting points. Starting points are also only displayed on maps that actually evaluate this tag.
The approach is as follows:
- Only one starting point for the entire relation (i.e. the point at which you decide on one of the variants). This is the point that can then be displayed on overview maps, e.g. as "Via Ferrata Vodní Brána" with a symbol (in such a view, several start symbols very close to each other make no sense)
- After many tests, I now use the following tags for the starting point, which are not criticized by the quality assurance (Osmose, OSMI, ...) only in this combination:
description=Via Ferrata... (name)
via_ferrata=start
natural=cliff
sport=via_ferrata
- in XCTrails the tag "via_ferrata=start" is used as a marker where the symbol goes (otherwise the route direction or altitude).

In this case I would suggest
- a single relation with named sections and different difficulties (via_ferrata_scale)
- Names and also colors (but as far as I know no one displays these on a map) for each section.

Hope this helps!
Matthias

Hallo supsup,
making sub-realtions on an via ferrata relation is not an good idea.
The main relation and also the starting points are broken now; see e.g.
https://www.xctrails.org/map/map.html?type=allferrata&trail=10588521
So I would strongly prefer to move the tags in the lines and to remove the sub-relations.
Greetings
Matthias

Hi StC,
last year we was there and I think I removed this name (but not the signpost itself), because the "Fin Montée du Purgatoire" is here instead:
node/9603995388
Both Via Ferratas (La Montée au Purgatoire and Le Chemin de la Vierge) are re-opened in the last year with slightly different routes.

The way/920942427 is an parking with 6 places... Looks like tagging of this two ways are inconsistant.
I think access=customers and parking=surface should be moved from 702617563 to 920942427.

Hello Antonin,
if you look into the history, you will see that I changed no tag:
way/702617563/history
So it looks like "amenity=parking" was removed 2 years ago (changeset/101515824).
I myself "only" touched the node positions...
Greetings, Matthias

Bonjour Nicolas,

(Désolé, c'est une traduction automatique).

Tu as inséré il y a quelques jours la raltion Ferrata du Thaurac.
J'ai fait moi-même la majorité des ferratas en France et j'essaie de les tenir à jour dans OSM également. Le Thaurac me manque encore et n'a pas été intégré correctement dans OSM.

Maintenant, ma question est la suivante : es-tu sûr de l'itinéraire ? D'après mes informations, cela ne correspond pas à la réalité.
La partie 1 (Les Deux Cheminées) fait plusieurs virages et débouche sur une tyrolienne.
D'après mes informations, la partie 2 (La Baume du Tigre) est fermée ou n'existe plus.

Nous voulons y aller cet été. Mais je pourrais aussi essayer d'améliorer l'itinéraire avant, à l'aide de topos et des images satellites.

Beaucoup de salutations
Matthias (Meißen, Allemagne)

Hallo StC,
sorry for confusion!
It was not my intention to destroy anything.
Last days I changed some relations to achieve consistency of via ferratas because they itself are not hiking trails. Start and/or end points should of course remain hiking trail points.
Sorry once more!
Matthias

Hi StC,
sorry for this!
It was not my intention to cause harm.
Cheers,
Matthias

Hallo Almawiki,
warum hast Du diese Pfade gelöscht? Dass die Stiege gesperrt ist, war ja korrekt angegeben. Unabhängig davon existiert sie ja aber nach meiner Kenntnis noch.

Hi St.,
I redefined both tags now for this node and I hope, it's now OK again?
(It seems I removed this tags because of there is (was) no guidepost. Instead there is only an info board for the via ferrata.)
Cheers
Matthias

Bonjour StC,
Désolé si mes modifications ont cassé quelque chose !
Mais depuis le point mentionné en passant par le col des Pylones, il n'y a pas de sentier de randonnée, seulement une via ferrata... ? Nous y sommes allés en septembre 2021. La via ferrata est certes facile, mais je n'ai pas vu qu'elle était en même temps signalée comme sentier de randonnée. Il faudrait déjà emporter du matériel de via ferrata.
As-tu des informations précises sur le tracé du sentier ? Le chemin sur lequel j'ai travaillé a été tracé par mes soins au GPS et n'était certainement pas un chemin de randonnée.
(Désolé, ce sera une traduction automatique en français !)

Meilleures salutations
Matthias
(cehceh)

Hallo BeJotEl,
danke für den Hinweis; sorry. Ich bin über kaputte Relationen gestolpert und war mir nicht im Klaren, dass da aktuell ein Rückbau stattfindet. Dann mach das bitte rückgängig.
Vielleicht ist es sinnvoll, an solchen Stellen irgendwie einen Hinweis unterzubringen, dass die Satellitenbilder gerade den Zustand gar nicht wiedergeben?
Viele Grüße!

Hallo tacosloveur,
thank you for updating Via Ferrata Roche Veyrand!
The new depart of second piece I added now to the existent ferrata relation (This is important because of rendering on other sites like xctrails.org).
For the closed piece with Passerelle du Pas de la Frousse I added the "access=no" tag.
Greetings, Matthias

Hallo lpik,
thank you very much!
I will try to make this ferrata in this summer and then update the trace.