[talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

Jonathon Rossi jono at jonorossi.com
Thu Feb 1 06:14:32 UTC 2018


Thanks Warin,

The Queen Street Mall in Brisbane is exactly that, a pedestrian highway
area and with the tag, however I did read something that the tag has to be
on the way not the relation so probably the reason routing doesn't work
there.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7781404

I think it makes sense for something that really is a highway, it feels
wrong tagging a park like that though, and iD instantly renders it
different so I suspect it'll introduce rendering problems.

When I get some time I'll try to jump into the GraphHopper discussion to
see if I can understand the problem better and see if a rudimentary
implementation is possible. I can already see how hard it is, how do you
know you can get from a residential road to a park for example.

Thanks again, Jono

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:18 PM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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 listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> 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/20180201/969c481b/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list