ฅ⁠^⁠•⁠ﻌ⁠•⁠^⁠ฅ (2025-03-14 11:11:43+00:00): Hello,

Please be careful when reverting changes, and thank you for the good faith comment about your changes. Note that I spent a few hours of diligence researching sac_scale carefully before tagging what seemed the most appropriate (T5 demanding_alpine_hiking). Many of the paths are at least alpine_hiking, and most likely demanding_alpine_hiking. I apologize if I tagged a path or two which was adjacent to a demanding_alpine_hiking path, but any such paths tagged led to a demanding_alpine_hiking path.

I defer to the fact that you've noted you've hiked these a lot personally, but perhaps we should be aware that paths should be tagged based on what a hiker is likely to experience in various reasonable conditions (such as fall/autumn), not what an individual who knows the path by heart experiences. We hiked in fair weather in the fall. During this time, the ground was covered in leaves and slippery and the path was invisible in many places with many false branches. We have significant hiking experience, and one of us has alpine hiking experience. Some of these paths required full-body-strength crab-scrambling at 40deg incline, appropriate only for someone significantly in-shape or an athlete (and not appropriate for most mountain hikers). Furthermore, many hikers have to be rescued in Bergen in the winter during more difficult (rainier, colder, and/or darker) conditions than the ones we experienced. sac_scale demanding_alpine_hiking is appropriate because the path has "exposed and demanding terrain with steep rock scrambles". See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale . It did not include "glaciers" and "snowfields with risk of sliding", but a path does not need to have all three of rock scrambles and glaciers and snowfields to be tagged as demanding_alpine_hiking. The OSM wiki even has very obvious pictures, which may be compared. demanding_mountain_hiking T3 is not appropriate because T4 requires "Use of hands needed in order to advance in certain places (UIAA grade I)" which was necessary, and "steep grassy patches" which occurred. We appropriately tagged the path visibility as horrible (rather than 'bad' to which it was reverted) because we, even when moving slowly, almost fell off a cliff (but were saved by a tree), and spent hours navigating half a mile even with pinpoint GPS and a map.

OSM data is used in many apps, and inaccurate reporting may lead to real injuries or worse consequences for other hikers. I am not overzealously tagging this in a reactionary response; my tagging was calm and measured and I believe unbiased. I would humbly suggest you are very careful with these reverts, as you are exceedingly familiar with the area so what is obvious to you is not obvious to even the average seaoned hiker.

I am tentatively un-reverting this with no hard feelings. I would suggest that perhaps you carefully only change specific paths if you have absoultely no trouble hiking this in the winter or in snowy/rainy conditions, or if a third party has no trouble hiking this in the fall when the paths are almost completely invisible. Please do be careful, as I will not revert these changes again, so the moral risk to people's health will fall on whomever it may. If you choose to revert, do not tag as T3 or lower as that is highly inaccurate (at least most paths; I apologize if I get a path or two wrong, as it has been 9 months since I hiked this).