[Talk-GB] Imaginery footpaths added by user "Gavaasuren"

[Stuart Reynolds]

On 18/08/14 11:41, David Woolley wrote:

>Considering the longer term problems:
>
>1) There needs to be better guidance to routing software 
>developers on how to route when there are parallel 
>features accessible on foot;

Agreed. The things that give our routing engine problems are:

- dual carriageways. We are limited to "official" crossing points. Many dual carriageways don't even have areas between carriageways, just voids. It is then worse, because the crossing point is often the road "cut through", which is usually marked for foot, and actually less safe for the pedestrian than crossing onto the central verge (although I accept that you can do it right next to it).

- pedestrian areas. With an infinite number of crossing "routes", we pragmatically route around the edge of it. Not especially helpful or elegant in many cases, but at least we get a route.

- footpaths/cycleways separated from the road. I know why these are mapped this way, but from a routing perspective they are hardly helpful (we want people to transfer from the footpath that they have walked on to the bus that is standing on the adjacent, and unconnected, road). 


> 2) There needs to be a lot more mapping of barriers.

Yes, although until there is it makes it difficult to do (1). Some things - waterways - are obvious. Others less so.


> Ideally, the routing rule for foot needs to be something like that,
> subject to access and surface quality considerations, if there is 
> no barrier between adjacent features, you may cross at any point
> between them.  In this case, there has probably been pressure to
> make life easier for the router.

We do need to define what we mean as "adjacent" though. And that needs to be something that is understood by the wider community, not just us.


> I think this also came up recently with regard to central reservations on non-motorways.

That was me. I decided again the suggestion of using this type of imaginary footpath, though, as I felt that there would be too many and, at the end of the day, unhelpful to the majority of routers/renderers

Regards,
Stuart