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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
