[OSM-talk] Beach routing

Philip Barnes phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Tue Aug 29 11:53:43 UTC 2017

This really needs routers to be able to route over areas, the same issue exists over large areas of grass such as found in parks or town squares.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 29 August 2017 12:00:48 BST, James <james2432 at gmail.com> wrote:
>"Dont tag for the rendered"
>Routers should make beaches routable even though theres no clear path.
>with indoor mapping: I'm not going to add a bunch of paths in something
>already tagged as a corridor/hallway
>On Aug 29, 2017 6:54 AM, "Jean-Marc Liotier" <jm at liotier.org> wrote:
>> Last week-end I went hiking along the coast from Honfleur to
>> Trouville-sur-Mer. As I wondered what distance I walked, I turned to
>> Openstreetmap routers... And did not find my answer: beaches are not
>> considered as highways.
>> I thought about adding paths to beach sections that I consider
>> walkable... But, while some of those beaches have an identifiable
>> along their length, for the most part this would be tagging for the
>> router.
>> I fail to imagine a beach that is not walkable. So, should the
>> use natural=beach the same way as
>highway=path+surface=(sand|gravel|*) ?
>> The question of routing across natural=beach brings back the past
>> about highway=pedestrian+area=yes - most routers do not route over
>> areas.
>> I just dug this thread, which goes along the same lines as my
>> but does no definitely concludes either.
>> My conclusion is that I should open wishlist entries for my favorite
>> routers... Is it a good idea ?
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170829/5d7be85c/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list