[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Mar 23 12:11:31 UTC 2021




Mar 23, 2021, 12:57 by pelderson at gmail.com:

> I tag lots of recreational routes as route relations. A route is a continuous chain of connected ways. In lots of places I need a linking way to keep the chain continuous, especially in hiking routes, because  there is no actual official link or path. 
>
> E.g. Often a cycleway is present for a stretch along a road. Then it just stops. Pedestrians and cyclists will continue on the side of the road. If the path is mapped, it will connect, at the end, to the centerline of the road with a virtual path, to provide a continuous chain for routing (including "manual routing" in route relations). This gets more complicated when footways and cycleways are both mapped separately, which is an increasing trend. 
>
> You could say it's tagging for the router
>
I would say that "there is connection between X and Y" is actually mapping reality.

And it is often needed if people map footways/cycleways as separate geometries
(and it is one of main drawbacks of doing it this way...)


> , but it's standing practice to map for continuity. As soon as routers and the standard OSM track export can be reasonably expected to deal with non-continuous routes and route relations, i.e. finding a solution for missing links which adequately deals with trajectory, access and other characteristics of the terrain where a connection is needed, I am all for mapping just what there is.
>
Note that is extremely unlikely - there are often small gaps where there is an actual barrier and
no passage! Distinguishing this two is not easy and trying to guess "there is connection here"
would result in massive number of false positives.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210323/d82f3826/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list