Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

Thanks Warin,

The Queen Street Mall in Brisbane is exactly that, a pedestrian highway
area and with the tag, however I did read something that the tag has to be
on the way not the relation so probably the reason routing doesn't work
there.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7781404

I think it makes sense for something that really is a highway, it feels
wrong tagging a park like that though, and iD instantly renders it
different so I suspect it'll introduce rendering problems.

When I get some time I'll try to jump into the GraphHopper discussion to
see if I can understand the problem better and see if a rudimentary
implementation is possible. I can already see how hard it is, how do you
know you can get from a residential road to a park for example.

Thanks again, Jono

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:18 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01-Feb-18 03:35 PM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> > Exists for areas of concrete too
> Yes true, including car parks which usually don't have footpaths.
>
> > I think if you tag an area as pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not
> go across them.
> Did you mean to say will or will not go across them?
>
>
> Will NOT go across them. Someone suggest that they may use the way itself
> for routing - so goes around the outside .. that would be helpful at least.
>
> And how would you tag an area as "pedestrian"?
>
> Create a closed way (that is an area), then tag it with
>
> highway=pedestrian
> area=yes  (this last should not be required ... but belt and braces
> approach)
>
> Refer Way: 354759945
> For steps refer Relation: 4645750
>
>
>
> Sounds like the general consensus is that routing is "broken" and we
> continue mapping as you'd expect, and there are no real good workarounds.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A 'well known' routing problem.
>>
>> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
>> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
>> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are
>> paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
>> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it
>> as an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
>>
>>
>> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>
>> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
>> GraphHopper:
>> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>>> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in
 local parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature
 rather than from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly
 across a park that is just grass.

 In the following example, I've mapped:
 - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
 inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
 the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
 - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into
 the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
 well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
 trees keep it path like
 - other well formed paths that lead out to roads


 https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056

 The OSM Wiki states:

 > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a
 road, should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's
 debatable whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node,
 or cross over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
 > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)

 If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
 playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
 just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
 feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
 entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.

 Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?

 Jono

>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>
>
>

Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Warin]

On 01-Feb-18 03:35 PM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:

> Exists for areas of concrete too
Yes true, including car parks which usually don't have footpaths.

> I think if you tag an area as pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will 
not go across them.

Did you mean to say will or will not go across them?


Will NOT go across them. Someone suggest that they may use the way 
itself for routing - so goes around the outside .. that would be helpful 
at least.

And how would you tag an area as "pedestrian"?

Create a closed way (that is an area), then tag it with

highway=pedestrian
area=yes  (this last should not be required ... but belt and braces 
approach)


Refer Way: 354759945
For steps refer Relation: 4645750



Sounds like the general consensus is that routing is "broken" and we 
continue mapping as you'd expect, and there are no real good workarounds.


Thanks

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


A 'well known' routing problem.

Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that
are paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't
see it as an urgent issue as there are not many people using
pedestrian routing.


On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:

It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
GraphHopper:
https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi
> wrote:

To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this
either, I was trying to work out if OSM could do this.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi
> wrote:

In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the
ground in local parks, however I've recently been using
the OSM routing feature rather than from other services
and I've discovered it can't route directly across a park
that is just grass.

In the following example, I've mapped:
- the short grass track (eastern side) that council are
likely inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles
through the gate to mow the park (the rest of the park
boundary has timber bollards),
- trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation
Area out into the park, the small bit of the "Trail
Circuit" in the park isn't actually a well defined path
it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
trees keep it path like
- other well formed paths that lead out to roads


https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056


The OSM Wiki states:

> Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a
park from a road, should always be connected to the road
for routing purposes. It's debatable whether they should
connect to the park area with a shared node, or cross
over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)

If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few
obstacles like a playground) then it feels like the
responsibility of the routing engine to just do this
(maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through
the park from each entrance that we feel is a main
thoroughfare.

Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem
elsewhere?

Jono



___
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



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

> Exists for areas of concrete too
Yes true, including car parks which usually don't have footpaths.

> I think if you tag an area as pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not
go across them.
Did you mean to say will or will not go across them? And how would you tag
an area as "pedestrian"?

Sounds like the general consensus is that routing is "broken" and we
continue mapping as you'd expect, and there are no real good workarounds.

Thanks

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A 'well known' routing problem.
>
> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are
> paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it as
> an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
>
>
> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
> GraphHopper:
> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>
>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in
>>> local parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature
>>> rather than from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly
>>> across a park that is just grass.
>>>
>>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into
>>> the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>>> trees keep it path like
>>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>>
>>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>>
>>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a
>>> road, should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's
>>> debatable whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node,
>>> or cross over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>>
>>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>>> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
>>> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
>>> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Jono
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Ben Kelley]

I noticed in ridethecity.com (which uses OSM data) that where there is an
area that says bicycle=yes, it will route you around the edges of the area
(as if it was a circular way).

 - Ben.

On 1 February 2018 at 07:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A 'well known' routing problem.
>
> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are
> paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it as
> an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
>
>
> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
> GraphHopper:
> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>
>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in
>>> local parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature
>>> rather than from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly
>>> across a park that is just grass.
>>>
>>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into
>>> the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>>> trees keep it path like
>>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_
>>> foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#
>>> map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>>
>>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>>
>>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a
>>> road, should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's
>>> debatable whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node,
>>> or cross over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>>
>>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>>> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
>>> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
>>> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Jono
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 
Ben Kelley
ben.kel...@gmail.com
http://www.users.on.net/~bhkelley/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Warin]

A 'well known' routing problem.

Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as 
pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are 
paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it 
as an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.



On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for 
GraphHopper:

https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi > wrote:


To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this
either, I was trying to work out if OSM could do this.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi > wrote:

In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the
ground in local parks, however I've recently been using the
OSM routing feature rather than from other services and I've
discovered it can't route directly across a park that is just
grass.

In the following example, I've mapped:
- the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the
gate to mow the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber
bollards),
- trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area
out into the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the
park isn't actually a well defined path it just opens up but
it isn't grass and the amount of trees keep it path like
- other well formed paths that lead out to roads


https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056


The OSM Wiki states:

> Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park
from a road, should always be connected to the road for
routing purposes. It's debatable whether they should connect
to the park area with a shared node, or cross over the polygon
without connecting. TODO discuss
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)

If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles
like a playground) then it feels like the responsibility of
the routing engine to just do this (maybe with an access tag
to say it is okay to do so). It feels wrong for us mappers to
map a "grass" path through the park from each entrance that we
feel is a main thoroughfare.

Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem
elsewhere?

Jono



___
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] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for GraphHopper:
https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>
>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in local
>> parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature rather than
>> from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly across a
>> park that is just grass.
>>
>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into the
>> park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>> trees keep it path like
>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>
>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>
>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a road,
>> should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's debatable
>> whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node, or cross
>> over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>
>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
>> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
>> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>>
>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>>
>> Jono
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

[Jonathon Rossi]

To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I was
trying to work out if OSM could do this.

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in local
> parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature rather than
> from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly across a
> park that is just grass.
>
> In the following example, I've mapped:
> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into the
> park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
> trees keep it path like
> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>
> The OSM Wiki states:
>
> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a road,
> should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's debatable
> whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node, or cross
> over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>
> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>
> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>
> Jono
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au