[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Mon Mar 22 15:16:39 UTC 2021

These connector ways are not virtual, they are real in several aspects:
First of all they have length, they have access restrictions, they have
surface and smoothness, and lit, and all the normal highway attributes. But
most of the time have no width, but may have maximum width.

They are very similar to the crossing highways path=crossing,
cycleway=crossing, footway=crossing, ...
Replace the crossed highway with a pedestrian square and you could say
there are infinitely many crossing wys required between any two entry
points. But we get a good approximation for routing purposes, if we put on
the area some connecting ways in such a way that a router does find its way.
We do that already by putting e.g. footways (highway=footway)  on squares
(highway=pedestrian, area=yes). So it would be sufficient o to add
footway=crossing on those footways.
If you are not happy with using the same value as for crossing ways, we
could use a new value footway=connector instead.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 13:37, ael via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>

> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 04:06:37PM -0600, brad wrote:
> > A nonexistant path shouldn't be mapped.
> Justification? That seems just dogmatic. A virtual path (or some
> equivalent) solves a longstanding problem with routers failing to cross
> accessible open ground.
> If someone can walk across a space in a safe and legal way, a "path"
> comes into existence, at least in the abstract.
> I do think that "virtual" rather than "visibility=no" conveys that
> situation more clearly.
> ael
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210322/5dcce576/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list