[OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Ed Avis]

Robin Paulson <robin.paulson <at> gmail.com> writes:

>I walk a lot, and would like a routing engine which understands i can
>take a direct route across an open public space, such as a park,
>without needing a footpath to be explicitly drawn in. the existing
>routing engines don't seem to understand this.
> 
>or am i missing a tag? do i need to tag parks, etc. with "area=yes"
>"foot=yes", "access=yes" or would that be a case of "tagging for the
>routing engine"

There are pedestrian areas in cities (rendered by Mapnik as a kind of grey blob)
which I assume routing engines can manage.  But by convention parks in OSM have
explicit footways marked across them, and I guess routing engines rely on that
rather than allowing you to walk anywhere.

Not all park land is walkable - some can be trees or bushes - so some extra
tagging is needed.  But I think this unwalkable land is the exception so it's
that land that should be tagged, rather than adding foot=yes areas for almost
everywhere.

I suppose a routing engine would impose a small penalty for walking directly
across grass, so explicit paths would still be favoured if they exist.

I suggest you file bugs against the routing engines and see what they say.
As a rough rule, leisure=park and landuse=grass could be considered walkable,
unless tagged access=no or access=private.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>