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.

Hallo lpik,
according to https://www.viaferrata-fr.net this Ferrata was reopened now.
Would you please revert your changes?

Hallo JandaM,
is it OK that I will use english?
I know that there is an small offset in the Bing layer. However, in the "Czech RUIAN budovy" layer many buildings are missed. So I decided to use Bing, because there is the smallest offset in comparison with other satellite images such as Esri, Mapbox or Maxar.
Also, in some cases there were OSM issues (overlapping objects) because streets and ways normally are mapped on the basis of Bing.
However, in future I will try not to move existing buildings!
Many greetings from Saxony,
Matthias

Eine Sitzbank ist nicht amenity=bank!
Ich lösche das mal wieder.

Hi sannorra,
you changed the properties of many via ferrata relations in the last days.
Are you sure that this defined properties are correct? I think the network tag is neccesary and at time the only way is the use of network=lwn; this is the way we are tagging ferrata relations worldwide at time.
Some time ago I tested this without network tag, but this results in Osmose issues, as you can see in
hdyc.neis-one.org/
Greetings
Matthias

Hi osmviborg,
thank you for the hint!
But why this? Missing buildings are not shown in SDFE Skærmkort. So I use SDFE aerial imagery. Is there any reason to avoid this?
Greetings, Matthias

Hallo Armin,
bist Du sicher?
Ich war noch nicht dort, aber nach meinem Klefü ist es vom Ausgangspunkt beim Col d'Arpettaz ein sehr langer Zugangsweg (6h) und der versicherte Steig im Vergleich nur relativ kurz.
VG, Matthias

Danke für den Hinweis!
Viele Grüße

Hallo aleene,

I think it is not a path, it is via_ferrata!
It is only possible (and allowed) with special equipment.
Please see:
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata

Matthias

Hi SHARCRASH, thank you for reply!
I agree that in many cases, especially for alpine hiking with ferrata parts, highway=path ist the preferred tagging. This relates to the classical meaning of making the route easier or more secure.
I think it is also OK to define the ferrata in such a way, if the route is in principle walkable without special equipment.
I know the discussion you mentioned.
For about 20 years, via ferrata climbing has developed into an extra sport with special rules and equipment. New routes (especially french routes) have nothing to do with alpine hiking.
Myself I prefer highway=via_ferrata in cases, where the route is only be possible (and permitted!) with special equipment. For instance, this prevents hikers using any standard map layer to be confused.
There is, unfortunately, normally no label indicating via_ferrata_scale.
Maybe it would be better to map not an highway and route=climbing instead...?
However, if you insist of highway=path in this case, it would be better to remove the duplicate line and change the original one to an path (this has the same effect, therefore my "meaningless").
BTW, the path to the start and from the end are not "oneway", I walked the path there and back ;-)
Greetings!
PS: Have you made the Via Ferrata Chaos de Coumély yourself?

"added extra path averlapping unvoted features"
Why this? highway=path should be meaningless in such an case, see: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata ?

Hallo Babaarhum07,

hopefully english is ok for conversation?
I see you did an update on the via ferrata La Chal and surroundings.

I'm interested in providing detailed informations of via ferratas for example for services based on it like xtrails.org (https://www.xctrails.org/map/map.html?type=allferrata).
I now see two problems that I would like to discuss:
1) details of the individual stages with the different difficulty ratings seem to have been lost during your update [original lines are: Via Ferrata La Chal: La Fissure en oblique + La Dalle Noire (615171495, v1), Via Ferrata La Chal: Sortie de la Croix (615171494, v1)
La Passerelle des Chevres (615171493, v1), Via Ferrata La Chal: Le Pilier jaune + L'Arete des moulins (615171492, v1), Via Ferrata La Chal: La Descente sous les toits + La Traversee de 66 (615171491, v1)].
2) There are some discussions about tagging Via Ferratas, see e.g.: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata .
I myself and involved friends think that the specification highway=via_ferrata makes more sense and is better than paths or footpaths, especially for ferratas which are not feasible without special equipment.
Would it be okay for you to adjust the tagging in this respect?
Greetings,
Matthias

Hallo,
danke Dir für die Antwort! Ich habe zwar keine Bedenken, was verirrte Skifahrer betrifft (bin dort selbst seit Jahrzehnten regelmäßig mit Ski unterwegs), aber wenn das so wie im Wiki gedacht ist, ist es eben so OK.
Viele Grüße!

Hallo,
der Lift ist zwar lange ausser Betrieb, aber solange er noch in der Landschaft rumsteht, fände ich es praktischer, ihn weiterhin als solchen zu definieren und damit beim Rendering sichtbar zu haben...?
BTW: Woher stammt die Info zum Thema "Neubau geplant"? Nach meiner Kenntnis ist das unwahrscheinlich, da der Pistenhang zuwächst und unter Naturschutz steht.
Viele Grüße
CC

Meine ursprüngliche Idee war, kenntlich zu machen, dass der Weg im Notfall befahrbar ist. Aber ich habe jetzt kein Problem damit wenn es Fußweg bleibt...

Der Weg ist schon befahrbar und wird auch befahren - die Zufahrt zu Garagen geht darüber. Natürlich nur für die Anlieger.