Das Gebiet gibt es definitiv noch. Also kein Handlungsbedarf.

Laut DAV/Digitizetheplanet wurde das way/1258176864 Gebiet aufgehoben. Da die ursprüngliche Quelle nicht DTP war, lösche ich es aber (noch) nicht. @map per - ggf. prüfen?

May I ask why you tagged the entire relation/2227233 as via_ferrata while in fact only parts of it (way/76618437) is a via ferrata?

changeset/166868437

m.e. ja: https://rosengasse.bayern/

You changed the via tag to via_ferrata_scale in this changeset - which seems not right at all?

Hi,

sorry, I obviously missed that there is already a relation changeset/59148665 - which is kind of strange because it includes much more than the *actual* ferrata (climbed it myself twice so I have some onsite knowledge).

Can we agree that I delete the new relation again but also combine the 2 ways of the actual ferrata (way/76618462 and way/76618437) into one way?

Point is: It would be nice to either have a relation (or a single way) which only includes the actual ferrata, not an entire trail where only ~ 20% of it is the actual ferrata (which in this case can also be climbed from Biacesa and not only like relation/2227233 maps it.

The linked website classifies this ferrata as "F" - which could by the french F which would translate to via_ferrata_scale=0, but from looking at the images, I'd say this is at least 1 or maybe more, so I've set it accordingly in changeset/160167019 for now since nothing happened here in 2 months.

According to via%20ferrata%20scale=* via_ferrate=yes is not a proper value. Can you set the actual difficulty for it? Otherwise safety_rope=yes would be a less optimal tag.

via_ferrata_scale=yes on way/114791610 is not a valid value for that tag. I'm going to set this to safety_rope=yes, if anyone knows the actual scale of this, please set the scale accordingly, see via%20ferrata%20scale=*

My bad, sorry.

Sorry, I disagree. Putting discrete data, which is also clearly defined in its meaning, into a text field (which a data consumer would then need to parse!) is bad database practice.

Besides, as I said, this approach is also used for piste:type=nordic#The_piste_as_relation and route=mtb - these are clearly established practices and in much wider use compared to the ferratas.

The fact that the ferrata proposal hasn't been voted upon doesn't make the reuse of an existing and agreed upon mapping pattern for this case "unofficial" IMHO.