Proposal:Mtb:scale:amtb
| mtb:scale:amtb | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | JPinAR |
| Tagging: | mtb:scale:amtb=*, mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=*, mtb:scale:amtb:technical=* |
| Applies to: | node, way, relation ( /  /  )
|
| Definition: | Rating system for Adaptive Mountain Bike cyclists |
| Rendered as: | May be rendered using Rendering details described below. |
| Draft started: | 2021-11-22 |
| RFC start: | 2025-01-25 |
| Vote start: | 2025-02-21 09:00:00 (UTC) |
| Vote end: | 2025-03-07 12:00:00 (UTC) |
Proposal
Adaptive MTB Rule #1: Never ride "new single-track" alone. A good ride is a ride everyone comes back from.
This proposal looks to add three related tags to OpenStreetMaps: (Yes, I will make separate pages on OSM wiki for each tag but for approval purposes, I wanted these tags to be considered collectively as a set for answering the broader questions about what can an adaptive rider expect so they can select a ride that will work for them.)
- mtb:scale:amtb=1-3/no - to answer the question 'Is support needed or not?' (More on ‘no’ flag explained below)
- mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes/no - to answer if trail is 'Friendly for ALL aMTBs by meeting Minimal Trail Standards'
- There are a wide variety of 'Minimum Trail Standards' for which a trail can be 'Friendly for ALL aMTBs'
- This is intended to compliment the aMTB rating on signage with the addition of a plus (+) symbol after to aMTB rating so aMTB1+ or aMTB3+ is possible.
- mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes/no - to answer if trail has 'Advance Technical Features or Terrain' that require 'Extra Skill or Practice'
- This is intended to compliment the aMTB rating on signage with the addition of an 'X' character after to aMTB rating so aMTB1X or aMTB3X is possible.
Note: You should never have a plus (+) and 'X' combination, as the addition of 'Advance Technical Features or Terrain' that requires 'Extra Skill or Practice' also means it will not be 'Friendly for ALL aMTBs'.
There are presently multiple adaptive MTB rating systems, why suggest this one for OpenStreetMap tagging? To be frank, the proposed trail rating system aligns with OSM's Best Practices in complying with One feature, one OSM element. Each tag serves to answer one and only one key question relevant to adaptive cyclists and doesn't try and duplicate or reinvent present trail rating systems like mtb:scale:imba=* or even mtb:scale=* instead it aims to complement those existing ratings.
In contrast, another popular trail rating system that also identifies as aMTB comes from Kootenay Adaptive Sports Association (or KASA) and has gained adoption specifically in British Columbia particularly and probably most famously at Whistler MTB park. The KASA standard has 7 tiers, each combining aspects of Trail Width, Tread Surface, Obstacles (Technical Trail Features), Unavoidable Bridges, Camber (Turns & Straights), Corner Radius, Exposure, & Recommended Equipment. While these are all good things to know, the KASA trail rating system does not fit a strict 'One feature, one OSM element' alignment, and I'd say subjectively serves better as a trail-building classification standard. This serves a purpose, but isn't a good fit for OSM. An interesting consideration though is that a trail that meets the KASA trail building classification/rating system will most likely get a mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes which shows how these two are complimentary but not wholly compatible.
The proposed rating system has been picked up by Trailforks which at the time of this post has:
- 1349 - aMTB1 rated trails
- 417 - aMTB2 rated trails
- 66 - aMTB3 rated trails
This makes this adaptive trail rating system more widely adopted than any other as well so it appears to work.
Why wouldn't existing rating systems work? Why is a new separate take needed? There are preconceptions that things like an IMBA Green trail can safely be assumed to be adaptive friendly. However, adaptive trikes and more rarely quads being the most common type of rides used both suffer from tipping from being 'off camber' so berms designed as part of switch backs which might make a trail very beginner-friendly (aka IMBA 'Green') actually can make the trail very adaptive unfriendly not because of the trail width but because of the trail tilt (aka AMTB 2-3).
There is another preconceived notation that all adaptive trails need to be super safe and for lack of a better word... 'boring'. In contrast to the above though, there are a good number of downhill IMBA Blues and Black, even some with Adaptive jumps, that one would assume need a lot of support but really don't because they are plenty wide and well-built for everyone to enjoy. Thus, an mtb:scale:imba=2-3 could be an mtb:scale:amtb=1 easily.
For instance, one trail Catapult is a trail that is IMBA Blue and have multiple bridges up and over another trail around a story high with a good chance of some air time. It's only Adaptive MTB 1 because there really isn't support needs for the entire ride unless something goes really wrong. Oh and did I mention it's 'fun' and not boring as well.
But isn't this a subjective rating? I've gotten this question a few times not and I initially felt like I needed to defend this critique, but then I realized mtb:scale:imba=* & sac_scale=* are both fairly subjective despite having pretty good descriptive definitions. I've, on more than one occasion, seen an IMBA Blue that I really thought was more of a Green, and I've been on another IMBA Blue that I've thought, "Why isn't this a Black!?."
I do not however see people arguing that we need to get rid of IMBA or SAC rating because they are subjectively inaccurate at times. The reality is that we are better off with some simple approximate indication for things rather than either nothing or getting way too "in the weeds" and technical that it's equally uninformative. I believe this rating system strikes that balance in answering the question it seeks to answer, and the fact that it's a little subjective doesn't mean it's still better than the alternatives.
Rationale
There really isn't that much to tell adaptive mountain bikers about their specific needs. A trail could be an easy (green) IMBA rating but not be wide enough, pass through trees that are too narrow, or had berms than don't work for adaptive use because of how gravity works differently for three wheels vs. two. I selected this based on similar rating of established MTB ratings like mtb:scale:imba=*, mtb:scale=*, and mtb:scale:uphill=*. Yet it is distinctive to this use case and the abbreviation has already gained wider adoption at places like TrailForks with requests for support at other MTB community websites.
Although aMTB looks a lot like MTB, that is kind of the point, and when seen in the context of mtb:scale:amtb=* some might need a moment to evaluate that MTB was not just listed twice and that something is distinct. I do expect the second MTB to be capitalized when possible to this point but even when it's not I believe it's clear enough.
Tagging
| Tag / Category | Challenge | Support need (for most cyclist) |
|---|---|---|
| mtb:scale:amtb=no | Mountaineering not Mountain Biking | Support required for greater than 20% of the trail |
| mtb:scale:amtb=1 | No challenges exist | Support not needed |
| mtb:scale:amtb=2 | Some challenges exist | Support recommended |
| mtb:scale:amtb=3 | Major challenged exist | Support needed |
| No rating | Never ride "new single-track" alone! | A good ride is a ride everyone comes back from, do not go without support! |
Note: A trail requiring more than one support rider, support for more than 20% of the trail's ride time, separation from a rider’s equipment, or extra equipment, is deemed expedition level and therefore not suitable for aMTB by the standards of this system. We understand that anything is passable with a crew, gear, proper planning and determination, but the goal of this project is to direct adaptive riders onto trails and routes that provide the best experience for mountain biking, not mountaineering.
| Tag / Category | Description |
|---|---|
| mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes | When paired with mtb:scale:amtb=* this change the 'most cyclist' to 'all cyclists' |
| mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=no or absent | When paired with mtb:scale:amtb=* rating remains for 'most cyclist' |
EX: aMTB1 (mtb:scale:amtb=1) - Most riders will not need support vs aMTB1+ (mtb:scale:amtb=1 + mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes) All riders will not need support.
| Tag / Category | Description |
|---|---|
| mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes | When paired with mtb:scale:amtb=* this indicates the trail has unavoidable technical challenges specific to an adaptive rider that skill and practice might be needed |
| mtb:scale:amtb:technical=no or absent | When paired with mtb:scale:amtb=* basically the traditional and adaptive rider challenges are the same. |
Some examples of what can get a mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes rating:
- small radius wall ride
- narrow bridge
- sharp turn with limited room to get speed for
- drop that might present an opportunity for a front-wheel drive adaptive bike
- enough off-camber tilt that getting the speed right is hard to dial in
Note: Almost all of these are things that can present challenges specific to adaptive riders. Where a narrow tree gate with no ride around might instead get a mtb:scale:amtb=no rating instead of a mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes.
More specific tags
- width=*
- surface=*, tracktype=*
- incline=*
- incline=*
- smoothness=*
- bridge=* + width=*
- bridge=* + width=*
Examples
The following areas have been tagged and color coded to give a gist of what this could/would look like: NW Arkansas (Coler, Slaughter Pen, Back 40, & Tunnel Vision) https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1XM5 Moab, UT https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1XM4
Deadhorse Point (near Moab, UT) (See trail blog here for reference and as cited source)
For this I'm going to start by linking to an Overpass Turbo query for this area where I've added multiple mtb:scale:amtb=* and mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes tags.
- Intrepid (aMTB1+ - mtb:scale:amtb=1 + mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes) - A quick 3/4 mile jaunt to the lookout and connection with Big Chief.
- Great Pyramid (aMTB3 - mtb:scale:amtb=3) - The trail itself is pretty much aMTB1, but there are two steep ledgy sections where most riders will need help and one semi off-camber slick rock section where some riders will need a spot. You could forego these spots by taking Raven Roll instead of the Great Pyramid and linking to Big Chief via the northern section of the Great Pyramid, but I did not ride this section and am not sure how it is AND you would miss the amazing views.
- Big Chief (aMTB2 - mtb:scale:amtb=2) - This is where most of the fun is. There is an extremely fun ledgy DH section (see video below). Suspension is highly recommended. At the bottom of that section and along the traverse north, there are two slightly off-camber sections where some riders will need a spot.
- Raven Role (aMTB1+ - mtb:scale:amtb=1 + mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes) - Adaptive riders should have no problem at all on this trail. It's wide open and mostly downhill back to the trailhead.
Lunch Loops (near Grand Junction, CO) (See trail blog here for reference and as cited source) For this I'm going to start by linking to an Overpass Turbo query for this area where I've added multiple mtb:scale:amtb=* and and mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes tags.
- Third Flats Road (aMTB1 - mtb:scale:amtb=1) - Wide open fire road that runs through the middle of the area
- Twist-n-Shout (aMTB1x - mtb:scale:amtb=1 + mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes) - This trail is long and littered with flow and tech. More DH if ridden clockwise. It even has a cool slick rock section after the Nut-n-2-It intersection. Most riders will good, but there is some technical terrain so it gets a little x.
- Rocky Stumble (aMTB2x - mtb:scale:amtb=2 + mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes) - There is a semi off-camber section in the beginning (if linking from Twist-n-Shout). Once past this, the trail gets visually interesting with cool-looking unique terrain. There a couple technical climbs so power assist, full suspension and rear wheel drive recommended.
- Quad Rocker (aMTB2x - mtb:scale:amtb=2 + mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes) - THIS is the best trail we rode! If ridden clockwise, the DH section is insanely fun. There is a staircase which takes some line choice strategery and the lead into it is a little tricky. I got a spot on the lead in to be safe, but with practice I think its do-able solo. After that, let it rip! We did not ride the southeast section — climbed up Roll Over instead — but I'm told its all good. The quick climb back to the road is steep. Power assist and rear wheel drive recommended.
- Roll Over Ridge Road/Cedar Point Trail (aMTB1 - mtb:scale:amtb=1) - Wide open fire. road, but its steep and loose. Riders with front wheel drive will probably need a push, but most will be good to go.
Rendering
I know there have been signs but up using the icon-based sign found here here. I'm in touch to make sure there is permission to use this and that it's not under any trademark or copyright restrictions. Ideally, I'll have 9 versions of this logo to cover the 3 levels and the two optional add-on tags:
| Rating | Symbol (SVG) |
|---|---|
| aMTB1 - mtb:scale:amtb=1 | |
| aMTB1+ - mtb:scale:amtb=1 + mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes | |
| aMTB1x - mtb:scale:amtb=1 + mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes | |
| aMTB2 - mtb:scale:amtb=2 | |
| aMTB2+ - mtb:scale:amtb=2 + mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes | |
| aMTB2x - mtb:scale:amtb=2 + mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes | |
| aMTB3 - mtb:scale:amtb=3 | |
| aMTB3+ - mtb:scale:amtb=3 + mtb:scale:amtb:inclusive=yes | |
| aMTB3x - mtb:scale:amtb=3 + mtb:scale:amtb:technical=yes |
The above Adaptive MTB symbology and can be used to rendering of trails based on their respective rating.
Statistics
Features/Pages affected
Definitively Mountain_biking, also will like have also use tagging references for mtb:scale:imba=*, mtb:scale=*, and mtb:scale:uphill=*
External discussions
- Blog interview around the needs and challenges that are associated with identifying Adaptive MTB trails
- Article about the health benefits (both mental and physical) of getting out as an adaptive cyclist and the challenges in finding suitable places to ride.
- Cyclist completing White Rim trail on Adaptive MTB, also mountaineers in Rocky Mountain National Park. Challenge perceived limits of adaptive wheelchair riders.
- The Unpavement
- Trailforks Adaptive Mountain Biking page
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page and the community forum.
- Community forum
Voting
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll back down and click "Edit source" next to the title "Voting". Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support the proposal! |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote yes or no but do have something to say. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For more types of votes you can cast, see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
Place your vote below, at the end of the list.
I approve this proposal. --GA Kevin (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Dschep (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2025 (EST)
- I approve this proposal. --Watmildon (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --ParzivalWolfram (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EightMegs (talk) (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Davidmcspaden (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Bradrh (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Ashley.patterson (talk 14:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --B1tw153 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 9 votes for, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions.
Thank you all for the kind support, next step inclusion in editors.