[OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Anthony]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Robert Kaiser <kairo at kairo.at> wrote:
> Robin Paulson schrieb:
>>
>> 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"
>
> Note that in some park, stepping on the grass is explicitely forbidden, so
> automatically routing across park space may pose a problem.

What is the default, though.  For a leisure=park, area=yes is
certainly the default.  access=yes certainly is not (you typically
can't drive through a park).  As for foot=*, I'd say foot=permissive
is the default (from the definition - "Typically (or pretty much
always) open to the public, but may be fenced off, and may be closed
e.g. at night time."). If stepping on the grass is explicitly
forbidden, the area should be marked with foot=no or foot=private.

As for the ability of routers to utilize open spaces for routing, I
think that's more of a future feature than a current one, regardless
of how it is tagged.  Doesn't seem like it would be all that
difficult, as a preprocessor would just need to add implicit ways
connecting the possible routes through the park.  But in any case,
doesn't really matter much how it's tagged, so long as non-routable
park areas are tagged as such.

I wouldn't apply the same logic to wooded areas, of course, but those
wouldn't be properly tagged with leisure=park.  As for long rows of
bushes, those should be tagged - maybe barrier=hedge?