Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

I have seen IRL a roundabout in the USA in which this approach was taken: The latest discussion I heard was whether to put larger concrete blocks on it, to further discourage people routing across it, or increase levels of driver training. If you're confident a fix can be coded up, pick your

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

Or just follow the same shape as border +/- say 1-4meters offset(keep it inside the polygon) On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Dave F wrote: > Sorry wanted to add this: > > With irregular shapes (crescent, for example) a check to see if the route > is within the

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

Sorry wanted to add this: With irregular shapes (crescent, for example) a check to see if the route is within the boundary & insert an extra node if required maybe be a bit more work but not impossible. DaveF --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

On 06/09/2017 12:33, James wrote: Not really, with a roundabout, you have a way you can follow. Where as an area, you'd calculate somewhat of the middle between the two edges to generate a path, as you can't just route on the boundary of the polygon as it might be unwalkable/doesnt make sense

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

Hi On 06/09/2017 12:27, Frederik Ramm wrote: If you only want to walk *around* the beach (or patch of grass) then with most routers that's simply a question of configuration ("allow walking on natural=beach", done). If the routers has the entrance node, they can navigate the perimeter &

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

2017-09-06 13:33 GMT+02:00 James : > Not really, with a roundabout, you have a way you can follow. Where as an > area, you'd calculate somewhat of the middle between the two edges to > generate a path, as you can't just route on the boundary of the polygon as > it might be

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

Not really, with a roundabout, you have a way you can follow. Where as an area, you'd calculate somewhat of the middle between the two edges to generate a path, as you can't just route on the boundary of the polygon as it might be unwalkable/doesnt make sense in reality On Sep 6, 2017 7:24 AM,

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

Hi, On 06.09.2017 13:21, Dave F wrote: > There appears to be a reluctance to develop this. 'It's not a part of > our plans at the moment' is the last response to my query. > I'm unsure why. To me, the coding to traverse the boundary of an area > would seem very similar to that used to navigate a

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

On 29/08/2017 12:53, 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. Yes. There appears to be a reluctance to develop this. 'It's not a part of our plans at the moment' is

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

On 06-Sep-17 07:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2017-08-30 11:56 GMT+02:00 Richard >: 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:28:41AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-08-30 11:56 GMT+02:00 Richard : > > > 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

2017-08-30 11:56 GMT+02:00 Richard : > 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

There are a few highway=virtual and highway:virtual=* objects, which is intended for similar issues. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/virtual_highway I've used it a few times on pedestrian squares where a route relation passes over the square (and it makes no sense to

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:36:49 +0200 Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: > On 8/29/2017 12:50 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > ... > > I fail to imagine a beach that is not walkable. > > ... > > In France, yes. [..] In other parts there are still beaches which > could belong to

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

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. Phil (trigpoint) On 29 August 2017 12:00:48 BST, James wrote: >"Dont tag for the rendered" > >Routers should make beaches

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

On 8/29/2017 12:50 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: ... I fail to imagine a beach that is not walkable. ... In France, yes. And I understand by now why. I am currently reading Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables", and he writes in this novel that one of the reasons of the French Revolution of 1789 was

Re: [OSM-talk] Beach routing

"Dont tag for the rendered" Routers should make beaches routable even though theres no clear path. Same with indoor mapping: I'm not going to add a bunch of paths in something already tagged as a corridor/hallway On Aug 29, 2017 6:54 AM, "Jean-Marc Liotier" wrote: > Last

[OSM-talk] Beach routing

Last week-end I went hiking along the coast from Honfleur to Trouville-sur-Mer. As I wondered what distance I walked, I turned to Openstreetmap routers... And did not find my answer: beaches are not considered as highways. I thought about adding paths to beach sections that I consider walkable...