Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 09:07, Andy Townsend wrote: > What actually is it that you're referring to when you say "routing" above? > Testing routing via OSRM after putting a path along the beach still gives: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot=-28.1073%2C153.4665%3B-28.1155%2C153.4709#map=16/-28.1116/153.4681 > they also update at different times (which might even be months after the > data in OSM has updated). > Wasn't aware of that, because when I just tried GraphHopper, it's now using the beach path (although it wasn't yesterday!) https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-28.1073%2C153.4665%3B-28.1155%2C153.4709#map=16/-28.1115/153.4686 So ignore my previous comment, as it does work! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
On 28/11/2021 22:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I tried putting a path along the beach, but routing still walks up to the nearest road, along that, then back down onto the beach at the other end? What actually is it that you're referring to when you say "routing" above? Different routers will process different tags for different modes of transport when deciding whether something is routable or not, and they also update at different times (which might even be months after the data in OSM has updated). If you're referring to the routers available from osm.org, then there are two of them (OSRM and Graphopper) and each supports 3 modes. Both can route over https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423685771 which has "trail_visibility=no" - https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=54.33093%2C-0.87679%3B54.32784%2C-0.87723#map=17/54.32938/-0.87666 . Best Regrds, Andy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
Hi all A similar problem with a nature walk, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/360672204 it appears to be unconnected to anything. In reality it is leading off a mown picnic area. What is rendering green there is the natural=wood. Maybe that wood should be converted to a relation with the picnic area as inner. Interestingly the nearby Lysterfeld Lake picnic area is landuse=forest. Maybe they both should be leisure=park. If routing to the nature walk was an issue, the picnic area could then be foot=yes All too hard for the moment. I have never found the vegetation tagging and the green bits on the map particularly accurate or useful anyway. Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 10:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it > is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. > Did that actually work for you? I tried putting a path along the beach, but routing still walks up to the nearest road, along that, then back down onto the beach at the other end? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
While I could place a track across each grassed area, the placement of the track would be somewhat arbitrary. Is there any point in trying to mark an area as walkable? In the example link below, people can walk pretty much anywhere across the two grassed areas, and it's only the track in between those areas which is an actual track. It sounds like I just mark a track, and accept that in this case I am mapping for the renderer/router? cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com On 26/11/2021 11:48 am, Warin wrote: On 26/11/21 7:16 am, Tom Brennan wrote: Quick question on unconnected ways. I've just mapped one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006252416 Probably best viewed in edit mode with an aerial photo underlay. This way is a physical path between two open grassed areas that themselves have no discernible paths. So at this stage, all I have mapped is the path, and it connects to nothing. Obviously it would be easy enough to connect up the two ends - one to Westminster Rd, and the other to the track near the Field of Mars Environmental Education Centre. This is the "natural" route, and certainly one that people walk. However, there's nothing on the ground to suggest that I should do that. Thoughts welcome. Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
We've previously used proposed tag fuzzy=[metres] for other "non track" routes, which may be of assistance. On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 14:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > More inclined to use description=invisible route on beach sand. > On 26/11/21 2:12 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > > Possibly path=link? > > > > *From:* Andrew Harvey > > *Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 12:34 > *To:* Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> <61sundow...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List > > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways > > > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it > is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. > > > > Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best > compromise at the moment. > > > > You could also add informal=yes > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal > > ___ > Talk-au mailing > listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
More inclined to use description=invisible route on beach sand. On 26/11/21 2:12 pm, osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: Possibly path=link? *From:*Andrew Harvey *Sent:* Friday, 26 November 2021 12:34 *To:* Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best compromise at the moment. You could also add informal=yes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal> ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
Possibly path=link? From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Friday, 26 November 2021 12:34 To: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com> > wrote: Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best compromise at the moment. You could also add informal=yes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it > is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. > Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best compromise at the moment. You could also add informal=yes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
I've seen the solution Warin notes here in USA, too. "Walk along the beach" (somewhat lengthily) yet the tide removes all the sandy footprints of any implicit or explicit "trail." It's a route, though one that is invisible upon the ground. But not among people who say "yep, mate, I'm walking from here to there" (or there to here). Because of that, it's a path, even though it can't be seen. > Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it is ok > to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
On 26/11/21 7:16 am, Tom Brennan wrote: Quick question on unconnected ways. I've just mapped one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006252416 Probably best viewed in edit mode with an aerial photo underlay. This way is a physical path between two open grassed areas that themselves have no discernible paths. So at this stage, all I have mapped is the path, and it connects to nothing. Obviously it would be easy enough to connect up the two ends - one to Westminster Rd, and the other to the track near the Field of Mars Environmental Education Centre. This is the "natural" route, and certainly one that people walk. However, there's nothing on the ground to suggest that I should do that. Thoughts welcome. Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Unconnected ways
Quick question on unconnected ways. I've just mapped one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006252416 Probably best viewed in edit mode with an aerial photo underlay. This way is a physical path between two open grassed areas that themselves have no discernible paths. So at this stage, all I have mapped is the path, and it connects to nothing. Obviously it would be easy enough to connect up the two ends - one to Westminster Rd, and the other to the track near the Field of Mars Environmental Education Centre. This is the "natural" route, and certainly one that people walk. However, there's nothing on the ground to suggest that I should do that. Thoughts welcome. cheers Tom Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
