streetcomplete
Feature #1850: Add Overlay mtb:scale
Further to this PR, I would like to submit this PR which adds an overlay for the mtb:scale
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/pull/5308
This also follows on from the discussion here fixes #1850 https://github.com/Helium314/SCEE/pull/559
I think the icon and icons need to be reviewed for better visibility, if the community can help with this that would be great.
I wanted to make sure I had the description because it can be complicated but the dialogue doesn't help. I can't force it to 100% width.
Cool!
My first thought is however that this seems to be a kind of information that is a better fit for SCEE, as I am quite skeptical if it is possible to make the pictures and descriptions short but still clear enough that they can be answered by non-experts, i.e. non-(mountain)-byciclists. But we can try, of course, for any improvement here will also benefit if it is added to SCEE instead.
A partial /quick review:
I'm sorry, I didn't understand. You don't want this PR? There's no problem, this one can go into SCEE, it's just that as there was an open ISSUE and a former PR, we assumed that it would be of interest to you.
You don't want this PR?
I wrote, that I am skeptical if the quest/overlay guidelines can be satisfied. In the current state of the PR, they are not. But maybe the PR can be enhanced.
My primary concern are the pictures in bad resolution and the very long description texts. If these texts cannot be shrunk to a fraction of the current text length without losing information important for their distinction, then it wouldn't satisfy the guidelines.
👨💻 Users are no experts: No knowledge about OpenStreetMap or any other background knowledge must be necessary 🐿️ Easy answer: Users are out and about and impatient. A quick, straightforward and clear answer must be possible
Regarding wording, I think indeed some guidelines could be taken from the discussion there. For example, skill is subjective, doesn't make sense to mention it at all.
Ok, I'll let the contributors who wanted this feature help me formulate it. I'd be happy to modify the code without any worries.
mention @torhovland @westis @RubenKelevra @CloCkWeRX @cperrier @jonpsp @rhhsm @mcliquid - who seem to have had interest in mtb:scale quest for StreetComplete previously; perhaps they'd like to help with shorter descriptions for mtb:scale overlay?
@RubenKelevra Can you tell me that I'm deleting the word grade from the title and using what @torhovland had proposed?
<string name="overlay_mtbScale_zero">No special skills needed</string>
<string name="overlay_mtbScale_one">Obstacles can be ridden over</string>
<string name="overlay_mtbScale_two">Requires some advanced riding skills</string>
<string name="overlay_mtbScale_three">Concentration and very good skills needed</string>
<string name="overlay_mtbScale_four">Some trials techniques will be necessary</string>
<string name="overlay_mtbScale_five">Very few can ride here</string>
<string name="overlay_mtbScale_size">Not rideable at all</string>
In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to have these titles at all. What is "grade 2"? Apparently, that scala is based on the "Singletrail-Skala", a standard for MTB classification used in Germany and Austria. Unclear if it has any relevance beyond that. So, also unclear if even MTB (German-speaking) enthusiasts would know that "grade 2" is equal to "Schwierigkeitsgrad 2 auf der Singletrail-Skala".
We don't show the name of smoothness (e.g. "good", "intermediate" etc.) and we don't show the tracktype value as titles, so I would prefer to have one more line for a concise description than for a nondescript "grade X".
Unless that scale is really known beyond (some) German MTB enthusiasts. I can't judge that at the moment.
This website has also some very concise descriptions for the different grades of the STS - in German:
https://thecycleverse.com/de/blog/singletrail-skala
| Skala S0 | Skala S1 | Skala S2 | Skala S3 | Skala S4 | Skala S5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sehr leicht | Leicht | Mittel | Schwer | Sehr schwer. | Richtig schwer. |
| Fester und griffiger Untergrund, keine Hindernisse. | Loserer Untergrund möglich, kleine Wurzeln und Steine. | Untergrund meist nicht verfestigt, größere Wurzeln und Steine. | Verblockt, viele große Wurzeln oder Felsen, rutschiger Untergrund, loses Geröll. | Ösenartige Spitzkehren, Steilrampen, kaum fahrbare Absätze. | Gegenanstiege, der Weg ist eher ein Wandersteig, Spitzkehren mit Hindernissen. |
Also, very interesting information here! Turns out, there are international standard(s). I only read it vertically, but at least with the ITRS there might be a 1:1 equivalence, meaning that it might make sense to place the symbols there for better association and/or make this country-dependent which symbols are shown.
https://ride-with-love.bike/singletrail-skala/#welche_mountainbike_bewertungssysteme_gibt_es_und_wie_funktionieren_sie
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amtb%3Ascale%3Aimba
It's not the same thing, at least in France.
the mtb:scale is used on all the paths where you practice mountain biking and the mtb:scale:imba is for the stations. You can compare this with the colours for ski slopes and the mtb:scale the difficulty for ski touring.
Is it like signed vs unsigned (e.g. maxheight vs maxheight:physical) or is the scale also different? E.g. mtb:scale=3 would rather bemtb:scale:imba=4 or whatever?
You would say that displaying the icons alongside the pics would rather be harmful than helpful? My thinking is that MTBlers might generally know IMBA and how difficult each of these are.
El 11 de julio de 2024 6:46:46 CEST, Alexis Lecanu @.***> escribió:
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amtb%3Ascale%3Aimba
It's not the same thing, at least in France.
the mtb:scale is used on all the paths where you practice mountain biking and the mtb:scale:imba is for the stations. You can compare this with the colours for ski slopes and the mtb:scale the difficulty for ski touring.
-- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/pull/5726#issuecomment-2222020961 You are receiving this because you commented.
Message ID: @.***>
So basically it's a mix of enduro and downhill mtb difficulties. At least that's what's been done in France.
imba = downhill, in resorts with facilities. mbt:scale = difficulty without layout, it's more for country and enduro.
Yes, sure. mtb:scale:imba is used for mtb facilities that are dedicated and signed as such.
My point is this: MTB enthusiasts that want to map in streetcomplete the MTB scale of trails might know about the IMBA or ITRS scale and thus have developed a feeling which IMBA grade relates to which difficulty. So, if an icon of the appropriate IMBA-classification would be displayed next to each selection option in a similar manner as it is done for the smoothness quest, it could help them choose the right option.
Do you think this would be helpful? Or do you think this would be confusing? (And with you I mean "you people interested in MTB mapping", not only @ravenfeld alone)
See also https://www.trailforks.com/map/legend/
IMBA seems to be used in US and/or internationally(?), UK/Euro is the ITRS standard.
My point is this: MTB enthusiasts that want to map in streetcomplete the MTB scale of trails might know about the IMBA or ITRS scale and thus have developed a feeling which IMBA grade relates to which difficulty. So, if an icon of the appropriate IMBA-classification would be displayed next to each selection option in a similar manner as it is done for the smoothness quest, it could help them choose the right option.
I'm riding MTB for fun all my life but have no idea what IMBA/ITRS classifications mean.
It's like you love hiking and don't know how alpine trails are marked. 🤷♂️
@westnordost wrote:
This website has also some very concise descriptions for the different grades of the STS - in German:
https://thecycleverse.com/de/blog/singletrail-skala Skala S0 Skala S1 Skala S2 Skala S3 Skala S4 Skala S5 Sehr leicht Leicht Mittel Schwer Sehr schwer. Richtig schwer. Fester und griffiger Untergrund, keine Hindernisse. Loserer Untergrund möglich, kleine Wurzeln und Steine. Untergrund meist nicht verfestigt, größere Wurzeln und Steine. Verblockt, viele große Wurzeln oder Felsen, rutschiger Untergrund, loses Geröll. Ösenartige Spitzkehren, Steilrampen, kaum fahrbare Absätze. Gegenanstiege, der Weg ist eher ein Wandersteig, Spitzkehren mit Hindernissen.
Those descriptions are very good. I've merged those non-explicit surface details into our descriptions, to not overlap with the surface quest and thus not confuse the users:
https://github.com/ravenfeld/SCEE/pull/2
It's now:
0 - Firm and grippy ground. No obstacles, wide curves, moderate slope. 1 - Possible loose ground, small obstacles like roots and stones, or tight turns. 2 - Ground mostly not firm, large rocks and steps, wide hairpin turns, steepness up to 70%. 3 - Possible blocks, many large roots or rocks, slippery surface, many hairpin turns. 4 - Very steep with large boulders, roots, or tight hairpin turns. High steps, loose debris. 5 - Very steep, counter ascents, the path is more of a hiking trail, big boulder fields, debris, or landslides. Hairpin turns with obstacles, fallen trees. 6 - Not rideable with MTB. Chains, metal rungs, unsecured alpine paths, >45° steepness.
A native speaker should definitely look over this. Some things sound a bit weird (TBH also in German - what's "verblockt"?) and I am not sure if these would be common terms. I could comment on this text, but maybe I end up adding more mistakes to it instead.
A few comments about the content:
- is to give steepness in percent understood internationally (e.g. US)? Depending on the answer to that, it should be used consistently, i.e. either in degrees or in percent
- Text number five is very long. I notice that it is a bit topsy-turvy: first steepness is mentioned, then what it rather appears like, then obstacles, then hazards, more hazards, then more obstacles and an example of an obstacle. Might be a good idea to have a consistent order in all these texts and not go back and forth.
- I think the abbreviation MTB should not be used. Just write "Impassable on bike".
TBH also in German - what's "verblockt"?
It means non-rideable objects. Meaning, you have to lift your bike over them.
Agree with the rest.
I think we should remove "steepness" as a detail people should map here, as we got the incline tag for it. I think it should more be an overall (and possible) detail of the difficulty, than a hard fact users should use to decide on if it's 5 or 6 for example.
I gave it another shot. :)
0 - Firm and grippy ground, no obstacles, wide turns. 1 - Some loose ground, easily navigable obstacles like roots and stones, or tight turns. 2 - Mostly loose ground, moderate obstacles like larger roots and stones, or difficult turns. 3 - Slippery surface or loose scree, challenging obstacles like blocks, many large roots or rocks, or switchbacks. 4 - Numerous challenging and technical obstacles like tight switchbacks, steep ramps, barely rideable drops. 5 - Extremely steep terrain with highly technical sections and numerous severe obstacles. 6 - Dangerous and impassable terrain, not suitable for mountain biking.
Edit: fixed typo
What do you mean with blocks? Boulders? Or road-blocks? Why is 1 loose ground but 2 is mostly loose ground? (Is loose ground good?) "Technical obstacle", "technical sections" sounds like "technically an obstacle". In any case, does it really serve to help classify the trail? I think it is better to (if not already done) give examples. E.g. in 5 I'd prefer "severe obstacles, like fallen trees" over "technical sections ... [with] severe obstacles"
What do you mean with blocks? Boulders? Or road-blocks?
Road-blocks, like fallen trees or other obstacles you can't ride over. If you got a different term for this, I'm open for suggestions. I thought "blocks" would work as a translation for "verblockt".
Why is 1 loose ground but 2 is mostly loose ground? (Is loose ground good?
Woops there's a "some" missing ;)
"Technical obstacle", "technical sections" sounds like "technically an obstacle". In any case, does it really serve to help classify the trail? I think it is better to (if not already done) give examples. E.g. in 5 I'd prefer "severe obstacles, like fallen trees" over "technical sections ... [with] severe obstacles"
Nope, it's not "technically an obstacle" but "you need technique to overcome this obstacle".
The difficulty of obstacles or paths is often referred to as "technical difficulty" and there are "technical skill required".
See https://www.mtblivigno.eu/en/single-track-scale-sts
Edit:
I think it is better to (if not already done) give examples. E.g. in 5 I'd prefer "severe obstacles, like fallen trees" over "technical sections ... [with] severe obstacles"
I don't think so. It leads users to see no fallen trees and say "oh no, so it must be a 4 not a 5". While 4 may very well contain fallen trees, as well as a 5 may have no trees at all along the path.
The texts are also too short to explain all possible scenarios. If you look at the full descriptions of the page linked above, it's a mouth full to explain it fully.
1 - Some loose ground, easily navigable obstacles like roots and stones, or tight turns. 2 - Mostly loose ground, moderate obstacles like larger roots and stones, or difficult turns.
In the US at least, "tight turns" and "difficult turns" are often synonymous with "hairpin turns". The S1 and S2 descriptions mentions turns in the context of not having hairpin turns and narrow curves. If I am interpreting "narrow curves" correctly, another way to phrase S2 it is "narrow lines", meaning that sections of the trail, including gentler curves, require riders to follow an exact line.
Also, recommendation for S3 in alignment with the S grades: 3 - Slippery surface or loose scree, challenging obstacles like boulders, many large roots or rocks, steps, tricky traverses, or hairpin turns.
That language better gets the point across IMO.
@normaclyde right. I can see how one may confuse tight or difficult turns with hairpin turns.
I modified it:
0 - Firm and grippy ground, no obstacles, wide turns. 1 - Some loose ground, easily navigable obstacles like roots and stones, no hairpin turns. 2 - Mostly loose ground, moderate obstacles like larger roots and stones, steps, narrow curves. 3 - Slippery surface or loose scree, challenging obstacles like boulders, many large roots or rocks, steps, tricky traverses, hairpin turns. 4 - Numerous challenging and technical obstacles like tight switchbacks, steep ramps, barely rideable drops. 5 - Extremely steep terrain with highly technical sections and numerous severe obstacles. 6 - Dangerous and impassable terrain, not suitable for mountain biking.
@normaclyde You are from the #trails or #language channel, right? Thanks for your input!
So, the other thing that is missing are better representative images of sufficient resolution. Maybe it would make sense to open a request for contributions in the forums.
> My point is this: MTB enthusiasts that want to map in streetcomplete the MTB scale of trails might know about the IMBA or ITRS scale and thus have developed a feeling which IMBA grade relates to which difficulty.
The trail ratings used wherever I've been in the US and Canada, are kind of unknowingly IMBA like ratings. We use a subjective green/blue/black/doubleBlack rating like ski areas. The mtb clubs, trailforks users, and mtbproject users use their subjective judgment and rate them in a regionally consistent manner. If streetcomplete wants a short description all they need is the colored circles and squares.
See here for the imba system.
https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/content/resources/2018-10/IMBATrailDifficultRatingSystem.jpg
The IMBA trails ratings were never meant for only bike parks, this is a BS invention of some OSM wiki writers. Several of us tried to change this 4 yrs ago, (see the mtb:scale:imba wiki discussion page). Sorry if I sound so negative, but my main hobby is mtn biking and OSM is a long way from being useful for trail ratings. It's great to have the trails in OSM, but I go to a local map, trailforks, or mtbproject to see the rating. Bradrh
@bradrh1 That has also been my experience in the past, but I recently noticed that a number of MTB apps have expanded to a 6-category system (see below). AllTrails uses 3, which doesn't comply with IMBA. Bikepacking.com and Bikepacking Roots both use a 10-point scale.
MTBProject (owned by OnX)
Trailforks
Oh well, I see. So if the different scales in-use have a different number of categories, it is somewhat moot to try to match them 1:1 to the mtb:scale of OpenStreetMap, i.e. displaying these icons next to the description and photos would only confuse.
@westnordost I mean mtb:scale is one thing and there are concurrent systems which can use other keys, like mtb:scale:imba.
We won't solve the overlap here of this different systems 🤷♂️