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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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&route=-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 > [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > -- Ben Kelley [email protected] http://www.users.on.net/~bhkelley/
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
