Also wenn man an Zwerenalpe startet kann man den mit etwas Gespür recht gut erkennen, aber ist ja auch nur intermediate. Ich fand horrible einfach etwas übertrieben.

The main Intention of mapping this path as T3, was to indicate this as the easiest path. The other path from south to Triglav is clearly harder but also not more than T4. So now its both T4, but okay.

I am familiar with the SAC scale and i guess you also know that it is a T3/T4 border track. So i checked the history, where it was mapped as T3 for 9 years. Cant have been that wrong. But T4 is fine too. Overrating a tour can also be misleading btw, so lets stay accurate. This Tour is not at least T4, cause it is never more than that. Popular routes are often overated while being not so difficult like it was before when it was T6.

This path is clearly not alpine_hiking (T4), but instead T3. T2 (mountain_hiking) however was also not quite correct. A wrong assumption which you made is that the difficulties here in osm correspond to the black, red and blue markings which they dont. The official markings are sometimes biased and also very insconsistent. And btw most of the time black is T3/T4 (e.g. Scheffauer, Kleines Törl are also mapped correctly as T3 and are marked black)

what came to your mind when changing Triglav to T6, you have no idea what T6 is I guess. Your bad edit was around for 3 years. This is bad.

I checked the prior path again and it was connected! I will restore the prior path. Removing might be an option but it is likely it will get reinsterted following strava, so not really productive.

Why did you changed the path and and the same time created a non connected ending of the path? The new path is going through a dangerous rockfall zone which should not be a path. Do you have a reason for that new path exept for strava data?

Bisher habe ich tatsächlich das so verstanden wie hier: https://bergseensucht.com/2019/10/28/ellmauer-halt-2342-gamsaengersteig-wilderkaiser-tirol-bergsteigen/
Scheint kontrovers zu sein, in dem Fall würde ich dann dir und den AV Recht geben. Gerne wieder ändern.

Okay, ich habe den Weg mal weiter westlich gelegt. So empfehlen zT auch Bergschulen den Aufstieg, wobei ich mir noch nicht sicher bin ob das in osm drin sein sollte. Aber so hab ichs jetzt mal gemacht.

Du hast hier den Weg über den Gletscher nach Strava angepasst, was auf Gletschern nicht unbedingt sinnvoll ist. Klar dort gibt es keinen Weg. Genau deshalb lieber an offizielle Wege halten, was beim alten der Fall war. Zudem bewegt sich der neue Weg von dir zT in Steinschlaggefahr. Ein solcher Vorschlag als Route in der Karte halte ich für problematisch. Gut ist allerdings das Einzeichnen des mittlerweile standardmäßigen Abstiegs zur Gletscherzunge. Besser wäre allerdings sich im Aufstieg danach eher westlich zu halten.

Ja, es ist richtig dass der Übergang fließend ist und eine echte Grenze schwierig zu setzen. Dann hätte ich im Zweifel so gelassen wie es seit 6 Jahren gemappt ist. Aber du hast schon recht mit dem Vergleich zu anderen Steigen, der vergleichbare Gamsängersteig ist auch ein path. Dann gebe ich dem path zumindest mal ne sac_scale.

Why do you randomly delete this path it is used regularly, visible both on strava and satellite
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166895005

You dont delete destroyed paths but rather mark them as such, i will revert the deletion and mark it as destroyed:path
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166694258

Try to bundle changesets in a same area editing the same type, in your case osmhydrant
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167517464

Warum hast du way/431068236 und way/1383572648 zu einem normalen path gemacht? Ist tendenziell ein richtiger Klettersteig und sollte als solcher gemappt sein.

Sorry i mixed things up, it wasnt your CS changing the point

Please be more careful with automated large scale edits, with this u corrupted e.g. a stream see CS 165781686

you changed the sac_scale of way/39406916 from T3 to T5 which it is clearly not. On most tour reviews it is rated from T3 to T4-, so the prior rating of T3 was certainly better

This path is tagged with trail_visibility=no, so there is technically nothing to be destroyed

I have been there too. You certaincly do not need climbing equipement for that, indeed the path is not well maintained. However we map what is on the ground not what the "Bergwacht" wants.