[OSM-talk] Beach routing

Richard ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Wed Sep 6 10:07:52 UTC 2017


On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:28:41AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2017-08-30 11:56 GMT+02:00 Richard <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:53:43PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > in many parts of the world such areas are actually "dont walk there",
> > before routers start routing them they awould have to be tagged with
> > access tags.
> >
> 
> 
> actually the chances are higher they will be augmented with access tags
> _after_ routing engines suggest to use them.

quite possible. However we also have too many ways to say "here be grass",
wondering if grassland, meadow etc should be handled differently?

Even if the meadows are navigable there are many personal preferences and other
cases to consider so access tag may not be enough.

> > Also grass areas in the mountains can't be assumed to be walkable.
> >
> 
> 
> not sure, it might just be lack of detail if the router thinks you can walk
> there but you can't because of obstacles?

some are simply too steep. Maybe they could be tagged with sac_scale.
 
> There are also other areas that will often be suitable to cross regardless
> of explicit ways, e.g. car parks, sandy and other bare areas, forests (in
> some cases), etc.

I am thinking it would be easier to tag these with additional tags (area 
highway informal?) declaring routability than teach the router all the
special cases.

Also, I think for the start it would make sense to consider and tag only 
areas that can be expected to be of some use for routing, not all places 
that may be theoretically accessible. No single mapper can walk all the
way criss and cross a large forrest to ensure that the whole forrest is 
really walkable but can easily check a few small areas.

Richard



More information about the talk mailing list