[talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Feb 1 05:18:52 UTC 2018
On 01-Feb-18 03:35 PM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> > Exists for areas of concrete too
> Yes true, including car parks which usually don't have footpaths.
>
> > I think if you tag an area as pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will
> not go across them.
> Did you mean to say will or will not go across them?
Will NOT go across them. Someone suggest that they may use the way
itself for routing - so goes around the outside .. that would be helpful
at least.
> And how would you tag an area as "pedestrian"?
Create a closed way (that is an area), then tag it with
highway=pedestrian
area=yes (this last should not be required ... but belt and braces
approach)
Refer Way: 354759945
For steps refer Relation: 4645750
>
> Sounds like the general consensus is that routing is "broken" and we
> continue mapping as you'd expect, and there are no real good workarounds.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:48 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> A 'well known' routing problem.
>
> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that
> are paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't
> see it as an urgent issue as there are not many people using
> pedestrian routing.
>
>
> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
>> GraphHopper:
>> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi
>> <jono at jonorossi.com <mailto:jono at jonorossi.com>> wrote:
>>
>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this
>> either, I was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi
>> <jono at jonorossi.com <mailto:jono at jonorossi.com>> wrote:
>>
>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the
>> ground in local parks, however I've recently been using
>> the OSM routing feature rather than from other services
>> and I've discovered it can't route directly across a park
>> that is just grass.
>>
>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are
>> likely inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles
>> through the gate to mow the park (the rest of the park
>> boundary has timber bollards),
>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation
>> Area out into the park, the small bit of the "Trail
>> Circuit" in the park isn't actually a well defined path
>> it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>> trees keep it path like
>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>
>>
>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>
>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a
>> park from a road, should always be connected to the road
>> for routing purposes. It's debatable whether they should
>> connect to the park area with a shared node, or cross
>> over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>
>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few
>> obstacles like a playground) then it feels like the
>> responsibility of the routing engine to just do this
>> (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through
>> the park from each entrance that we feel is a main
>> thoroughfare.
>>
>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> Jono
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180201/63a4e6f5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list