[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Tue Mar 23 12:59:37 UTC 2021

On 23/03/2021 15:10, ael via Tagging wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 01:30:43PM +0300, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
>> I am sorry but I am still not seeing the advantage or added value to
>> introduce keys or values to indicate that something is "less visible" or
>> "less verifiable" or virtual or whatever you call it. I can't fit it in the
>> model that exists in my mind how we map things, especially ways in OSM.
> Sorry, but that is your problem. I use a couple of routers that will
> send my on an absurd detour around a large park instead of choosing
> a route directly across said park. OK, one could get around that
> particular case by mapping the park with some sort of area highway,
> but that would be pretty artificial and would not cater for bits
> of the boundary that are not easily crossed. Oh, and noone is going
> to tags all the parks in that way.
I don't think so.  It is your problem that you don't understand the 
concept of routing in OSM because you missed to map those open country 
paths where there are no barriers.  It actually is what lies at the 
basis of of tracks and paths, it's how they are created. If you are 
really of country, a pioneer or explorer and want to route every path 
you can follow between every tree, feel free.  That would be awefull.  
If you want to create a router that can solve that problem for you it 
should use the areas already there, tha barriers which are there.  
Routing your preferred path between tree A or B and the next one who 
comes there between C and D makes absolutely no sense.  If there is no 
visible path, at all, don't map it.
If the land is not legal to pass use access keys, even if there is a 
path. If there is no feasible path and it's not legal, don't map it.
> The park is just one example. When hiking in unfamiliar open
> countryside, it is useful to know where can cross areas legally and
> safely.
Yep, so map it if you find a path that is there or is cleared by you or 
before you. If there is absolutely nothing, but it's legal to cross, 
draw a path through the middle, perfectly OK. No need for a virtual tag 
> Routers will know when they are using "virtual" paths (or whatever we
> call them) and display that section of the path in some distinctive
> way so that the user is aware of the situation. Probably so deviations
> from that section may be appropriate, and so on.
The router should use access keys for that. A path is there and use the 
existing access keys. Enough diversity to reflect all situations. No 
need for a virtual key.
> I just know that my current routers have an obvious and significant
> limitation, and the suggestion of virtual paths or whatever seems to me
> to be a simple solution. But I have not written any routers, so the
> authors of such software are the ones who will have the most useful
> opinions.
It's not a router problem, it's a mapper and router user problem. To 
solve the problem, map them, they are all virtual anyway.
> 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/20210323/03f79c6e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list