Talk:Key:piste:grooming

what about (official) sledding hills (piste:type=sled) with no grooming at all? wouldn't it make sense to use piste:grooming=no instead of piste:grooming=backcountry? --Stefanct 11:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing definition of piste:grooming=classic

The current definition of "piste:grooming=classic" doesn't make sense: it refers to two entirely different types of grooming based on whether a trail is designated as nordic or alpine, a distinction that is frequently blurred when alpine and nordic areas share a mountain (Howelsen Hill in Steamboat Springs, CO, and Mont Sainte-Anne in Quebec come to mind). A user changing simply the piste:type designation without updating piste:grooming as well could lead to problems for skiers using the map and vice versa.

The current "piste:grooming=classic" definition is additionally problematic because it doesn't create a good sense of conditions on the ground, even for non-skiers. In practice, piste:type=nordic; piste:grooming=skating" and "piste:type=downhill; piste:grooming=classic" are effectively the same surface—a wide swath of snow compressed and flattened into smooth, regular corduroy, without specific parallel tracks set for classic skiing.

I would highly recommend the existing piste:grooming=downhill for alpine-tagged trails groomed in this fashion. If it makes sense to have it combined with a nordic grooming designation, it should be skating, not classic; the least-confusing option from a user POV might be a "piste:grooming=corduroy" tag that applies, irrespective of piste:type designation.

--Cosmocatalano (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think grooming is de facto omitted for piste:type=downhill. Here is the stats for ways tagged piste:type=downhill

   grooming     | count 
                | 53838
classic         |  8068
backcountry     |  1772
mogul           |   408
competition     |   110
no              |    38
downhill        |    26
classic+mogul   |    20
classic+skating |    18
skating         |    11
yes             |    10
scooter         |     9
classic;skating |     6
brush           |     2
glade           |     2
ungroomed       |     2
-               |     1
none            |     1
skicross        |     1
slalom          |     1
snow_park       |     1

This should probably be documented as "'classic' or omitted for a groomed ski run". --Yvecai (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

classic not meaning the same thing for piste:type=nordic and piste:type=hike is highly problematical at places where a piste (or part of it) is used for cross-country skating and winter hiking, i.e. piste:type=hike;nordic. There is only one preparation at such places, but it is piste:grooming=skating for cross-country skiing and piste:grooming=classic for winter hiking. However, piste:grooming=classing on such a way would wrongly imply that there are tracks for classic cross-country skiing. --Dafadllyn (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current tag definition is problematic, especially for multi use pistes. Another problematic example is alpine ski piste that are also XC ski trails without classic tracksetting. I would like to see separate tags for grooming width (i.e. is it just a narrow snowmobile track, wide enough for a skate lane, multiple skate lanes, or groomed out to the width of the entire alpine skiing piste), whether classic tracksetting is present, and what kind of grooming equipment is used (heavy snowcat, snowmobile towing a tracksetter, or even a super narrow snow dog which I have seen used to groom fatbike and snowshoe trails). However perhaps it would be sufficient to add piste:grooming=hike (if it is groomed for hiking without snowshoes) and piste:grooming=downhill for full piste downhill grooming and then use semicolon separated attributes for multi use trails (i.e. piste:grooming=hike;skating or piste:grooming=downhill;skating for the previous examples. One problem with this idea is that it would change the meaning of the existing piste:grooming=classic tag to mean "groomed for classic XC only" which is problematic for many existing tagged ways. ScottNelson (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The current piste:grooming tag definition does not allow for snowmobile groomed skate skiing trails (piste:grooming=scooter;skating?) which exist at some small community run XC ski areas. Nor does it differentiate trails groomed for fatbiking with a snow dog, which only grooms 1.5-2 feet wide. The narrower snow dog groomer leads to a somewhat different riding experience compared to fatbike trails that are groomed by snowmobile. I think the best thing would be to make classic tracksetting its own key piste:grooming:trackset=yes/no/0/1/2/<any number of tracks> and deprecate piste:grooming=classic, piste:grooming=skating and replace them with the following values:

piste:grooming	Definition
downhill	typically groomed by snowcat to a width wider than 6m (more than 2 passes). Typically this is only used for alpine pistes. Perhaps it could also apply to nordic stadium areas where the entire surface is groomed?
double	typically groomed by two passes of a snowcat, usually in opposite direction. This width allows for two classic tracks and enough room for skaters to pass.
single	typically groomed by one single pass of a snowcat. Usually this width is suitable for skating in one direction only.
double_scooter	typically groomed by snowmobile with a wide ginzu or two passes to create a groomed surface wide enough for one or more skate lanes.
scooter	typically groomed by snowmobile to a width of 1.5m or less. Not wide enough for skate skiing.
snowdog	typically groomed by snow dog (width < 1m). Suitable for hiking, snowshoeing and fat biking only.

ScottNelson (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

What about piste:grooming:xx:lanes? See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=piste%3Agrooming%3A#keys Would this work for you? It seems to extend the tagging scheme without deprecating anything (which is unrealistic, by the way). Yvecai (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems like an excellent approach since piste:grooming=classic;skating? and piste:grooming=classic could continue to hold their current meaning for nordic pistes). This also works for pistes that are groomed with separate lanes for walking, skate skiing and classic skiing as well as pistes with multiple classic tracks. I still think it's better to phase out the use of piste:grooming=classic for anything that is not a nordic ski piste and replace it with a better description. The existing use in the database can stand. (That's what I mean by deprecation - discouraging the old use while still officially supporting it and not necessarily attempting to migrate data to comply with the recommended use. I believe this approach is already being used for piste:grooming=classic+skating.

Tag	Definition
piste:grooming=classic	If piste:type=nordic implies piste:grooming:classic:lanes=2(?), piste:grooming:skating:lanes=0.
piste:grooming=skating	Implies piste:grooming:skating:lanes=1, piste:grooming:classic:lanes=0
piste:grooming=classic;skating	Implies piste:grooming:skating:lanes=1, piste:grooming:classic:lanes=2
piste:grooming=downhill	Groomed primarily for alpine skiing. For multi use pistes document additional lanes with piste:grooming:<skating/classic/fatbike/hike>:lanes
piste:grooming=scooter	Groomed by snowmobile, typically to a width of 1.5m or less. If piste:type=nordic, implies piste:grooming:classic:lanes=1 and piste:grooming:<skating/fatbike/hike>:lanes=0 but these values may be overridden if the trail is groomed wide enough. For single use pistes piste:type=xx, implies piste:grooming:xx:lanes=1 and piste:grooming:yy:lanes=0 for all other uses, but these values may be overridden. If piste type is multi use implies classic skiing is permitted but there is no tracksetting (piste:grooming:<classic>:lanes=0 and piste:grooming:<skating>:lanes=1).
piste:grooming=snowdog	typically groomed by snow dog (width < 1m). implies piste:grooming:classic:lanes=0 and piste:grooming:skating:lanes=0 (i.e. no tracksetting for nordic skiing, not wide enough to skate).

ScottNelson (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

+1, for the general approach but could we, please, stay in sync with Lanes. E.g. use piste:lanes:grooming:xx=* or even lanes:piste:grooming:xx=* with numerical values, similar to lanes:bus=*, and use piste:grooming:lanes[:forward/backward/both_ways]=* with values like skating|classic|classic for the exact layout. Then piste:width:lanes=3|1|1 would work, too. --Skyper (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

classic+skating vs. classic;skating

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Piste_Maps#classic.2Bskating_vs._classic.3Bskating --Klumbumbus (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty to add it. --Dafadllyn (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Page rewrite proposal

I've made an attempt to re-write this page with a goal to describe current usage more clearly, see below.--Yvecai (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No comments, I rewrote the page.--Yvecai (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Limited grooming ?

How to tag an occasional groomed track ?
Like winter_service=limited, could we use the limited value ?

--Pyrog (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the best way to do this is with piste:grooming:priority=5. ScottNelson (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)