Even just knowing and seeing where the sidewalks are is a massive improvement over the typical situation, which is, unfortunately, no data at all.
But routing is a primary target and the sidewalks were never intended to be disconnected on the long term. As crossings are added, I'll recommend (and probably help with) a pass with the JOSM validator to find disconnected, overlapping ways, a good best practice in any case. With a couple hotkeys in mind, it takes only a few seconds to connect a block. But this really is something of a router issue, and seems to be the main point of contention. Sidewalks should definitely be part of a connected network (as is the plan in San Jose), but there are all kinds of situations where incremental mapping will create pedestrian "islands" that remain in the map for a long time: - building courtyards when indoor corridors have yet to be added. - small paths in residential areas, like back yards. - rooftop features that lack connection to indoor corridors. - some boardwalks (gotta go over sand) And of course, eventually, sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure end and become disconnected. Recommending walking in the street is a consequence of the primary forms of routing being car-centric and is a bit of a hack: there's no real confidence that it's safe or legal. In the examples provided with graphhopper, there are two things it should probably be doing: 1. Preventing disconnected subgraphs from being selected in the first place, or at least providing an alternative route. Real pedestrian infrastructure has gaps and islands. 2. Given the extremely short distances involved, it should also offer a path that ignores the map, which is what most routers will do. The examples that have been given for breaking routing are over extremely short distances, unlikely to ever be part of a real route outside of multimodal trip planning where the destination happens to be by a bus stop. Since that's part of the goal of this import, I'm sure it'll be addressed. On Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 7:28 AM Andy Townsend <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20/10/2017 14:07, Clifford Snow wrote: > > ... The goal isn't really to have pedestrian routing, but to enable > > people, especially those with limited mobility, to get to and from > > their destination. > > Apologies if I'm missing something here, but surely the latter has the > former as a prerequisite? A router designed for people with limited > mobility might take into account things like drop kerbs, crossing > widths, tight turns etc., but as a minimum it still needs to be able to > find a connected route from A to B, surely? > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
