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

Ben Kelley ben.kelley at gmail.com
Wed Jan 31 22:52:09 UTC 2018


I noticed in ridethecity.com (which uses OSM data) that where there is an
area that says bicycle=yes, it will route you around the edges of the area
(as if it was a circular way).

 - Ben.

On 1 February 2018 at 07:47, 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
>
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kelley at gmail.com
http://www.users.on.net/~bhkelley/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180201/aa6ed02f/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list