[Talk-us] Beach routing

[Andrew Guertin]

On 07/09/2014 12:50 PM, Elliott Plack wrote:
> OSM US:
>
> I've been using some routing engines to map fitness routes (e.g. Strava)
> that use OSM data. Along our US coasts, there are beaches. The beaches I'm
> familiar with are popular with walkers and joggers to go up and down the
> shore, since access is generally open to anyone along the water's edge. I'm
> considering adding a `highway=path` along the beach to facilitate this. I'd
> add the connections to the walking paths between parking lots and the beach
> as well.
>
> For uninterrupted strips of sandy beach, would a path be appropriate to
> indicate walkability?
>
> How the map looks now in iD: http://i.imgur.com/2EQ06BR.jpg
> What I'd propose to do (note the connections):
> http://i.imgur.com/i8dj6lQ.jpg
> Area of the examples:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/38.45143/-75.04957
>
> Thanks,

Contrary to the other replies, why not just teach the routers that 
beaches are something that can be walked (or ridden or driven) on?

Access restrictions can go on the beach itself, with bicycle tags if 
it's explicitly forbidden. There's no documented default value of 
surface for a beach, but sand is probably a decent guess. The beach can 
already be tagged with fee=*. Paths can connect to the beach area. All 
of this is already set and available for use by routers.

If you add a separate path, a router can't know whether it needs to 
apply the fee from the surrounding beach or not. If you also tag fee on 
the path, a user won't know whether having paid the fee for the beach 
also entitles them use of the path, or whether they can pay just for 
walking rights and not swimming. Surface needs to get tagged multiple 
times, as do any access restrictions. And in the end, it's really just 
not a path anyway.

That said, I understand the appeal of just making things work now, and I 
wouldn't be too beat up about it if paths do get added.

--Andrew