[OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...)

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> But in order to make a decent
>> routing application, someone is going to have to maintain a database
>> of certain laws in any states they wish for their routing application
>> to work.
>
> It is certainly good to know what is allowed.
>
> But a good routing application should also consider (and I think this was
> recently mentioned by someone else) the physically possible which might be
> more or less than what's legal [...]

Absolutely.

> And then both axes are not really "boolean". Between the physically possible
> and the physically impossible may lie an area that requires more skill,
> better vehicles or simply means a higher risk of accidents. Between the
> allowed and the forbidden lie several steps of badness - how likely is it
> that I am found out, and what fine or punishment am I in for if I am found
> out?
>
> A good routing application will lay this wealth of information out before
> you, so that you can decide whether you'd rather risk injury, penalty and
> being re-born as a rat, but save time and fuel, or whether you prefer to pay
> a little more for safety.
>
> Existing commercial routing applications take the easy way out by excluding
> anything that is not legal. I hope we won't!

Interesting.  I don't know if I agree with that or not.  I certainly
don't want to be involved in a project which encourages people to
break the law, since encouraging people to break the law is in itself
against the law where I live.

But beyond that, I don't know.  If you can do it in a way that
neutrally maps reality "surface=X, grade=X, etc." I guess I don't
mind.