Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On 10/03/2015 16:56, Volker Schmidt wrote: Subject: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks For example let's use parks. Both of the foot routers won't cross the park unless there's a specific path way. However, as users can wander about anywhere they like there are no marked paths, not even worn ground. (I would post an example but OSM has just gone down) Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths. To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no You're talking about the opposite problem really: If there are tagged paths then the routers can easily transverse the area. I'm trying to get them to cross an area when there are no defined paths the whole area is accessible. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On 10/03/2015 17:02, Mike N wrote: On 3/10/2015 12:56 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths. To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no I agree - there needs to be areas of general walk permission established before a router can include that area. The vast majority of parks are public access should be assumed as such. Access restrictions should be tagged. Similar to roads/path etc. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
2015-03-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl: Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do not have an example of an area without additional roads ready. I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On 18/03/2015 10:31, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2015-03-18 11:25 GMT+01:00 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl mailto:md...@xs4all.nl: Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do not have an example of an area without additional roads ready. I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas. With routers going 'mainstream' on OSM's front page, what a perfect time to amend that omission. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On 2015-03-10 17:56, Volker Schmidt wrote: Subject: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks For example let's use parks. Both of the foot routers won't cross the park unless there's a specific path way. However, as users can wander about anywhere they like there are no marked paths, not even worn ground. (I would post an example but OSM has just gone down) If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths. To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no Isn't it better to tag areas where you are allowed to walk with foot=yes (when it is not already tagged as highway)? I don't know how routers handle leisure=park or landuse=grass combined with foot=yes. Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do not have an example of an area without additional roads ready. Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
OK, my answer should have been more clear: 1. we need a tag for the area: stay_on_path=yes|no 2. we want routers to cross parks with stay_on_path=no ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
Are there routers that do shortest-path routing across areas? I do not have an example of an area without additional roads ready. I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas. There's some prior work in OpenTripPlanner - http://blog.openplans.org/2012/06/b-roll-david-solves-the-plaza-problem-with-help-from-de-berg-and-matt-conway/ . The odd cases come up quickly when there is a convex or concave area and deciding when to traverse it. I'm not sure if that work was rolled up into the current OpenTripPlanner repository though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
Le 18/03/2015 11:31, Janko Mihelić a écrit : I'm not aware of any routers that routes across areas. They do exist: http://moodwalkr.makina-corpus.net/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:35 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/03/2015, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 3/10/2015 12:56 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths. To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no I agree - there needs to be areas of general walk permission established before a router can include that area. Or the router could have an affinity for the path but not so aggressively avoid it if there's not a barrier way more substantial than bollard in the way... Another common usecase is surface car parks. You've got lots of pedestrian paths that lead to it, but nothing explicit inside it, and even following the service=parking_aisle ways would be too restrictive. These could be mapped as highway=surface, area=yes anyway (not sure how well routing engines actually handle this, but navigable areas are hardly unique to carparks). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
2015-03-10 17:56 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no Maybe we need a general tag that says if an area can be traversed by foot in any direction. Would foot=yes be enough? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On 10/03/2015, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 3/10/2015 12:56 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths. To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no I agree - there needs to be areas of general walk permission established before a router can include that area. Another common usecase is surface car parks. You've got lots of pedestrian paths that lead to it, but nothing explicit inside it, and even following the service=parking_aisle ways would be too restrictive. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Routing across parks
Hi With the addition of routing to the man page there's been a few cases of adding ways in order to get routing to work. This is not the fault of the people editing, but the routing software. For example let's use parks. Both of the foot routers won't cross the park unless there's a specific path way. However, as users can wander about anywhere they like there are no marked paths, not even worn ground. (I would post an example but OSM has just gone down) I thought the assumption was parks pedestrian areas etc were able to be crossed as long as there were ways joined to the perimeter to enter/exit. Why can't routing software process the perimeter checking each node to see if there's a joined way to exit? As parks have many entrances adding ways connecting up each of them would be over the top. Separate Q: On Richard F. cycle.travel routing. How do reset start again? Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
Ah, thanks. With the X I assumed that was closing the side panel, not just clearing the data. On 10/03/2015 12:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Dave F. wrote: On Richard F. cycle.travel routing. How do reset start again? There's a Close route button at the top of the turn-by-turn directions - click that and it'll clear the route. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Routing-across-parks-tp5836533p5836536.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
Dave F. wrote: On Richard F. cycle.travel routing. How do reset start again? There's a Close route button at the top of the turn-by-turn directions - click that and it'll clear the route. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Routing-across-parks-tp5836533p5836536.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
Subject: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks For example let's use parks. Both of the foot routers won't cross the park unless there's a specific path way. However, as users can wander about anywhere they like there are no marked paths, not even worn ground. (I would post an example but OSM has just gone down) If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths. To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
On 3/10/2015 12:56 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but not always, you have to stay on the paths. To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like stay_on_path=yes|no I agree - there needs to be areas of general walk permission established before a router can include that area. FYI - OpenTripPlanner includes some form of routing for highway=pedstrian areas. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
