On 07/09/2014 12:50 PM, Elliott Plack wrote:
OSM US:
I've been using some routing engines to map fitness routes (e.g. Strava)
that use OSM data. Along our US coasts, there are beaches. The beaches I'm
familiar with are popular with walkers and joggers to go up and down the
shore, since access is generally open to anyone along the water's edge. I'm
considering adding a `highway=path` along the beach to facilitate this. I'd
add the connections to the walking paths between parking lots and the beach
as well.
For uninterrupted strips of sandy beach, would a path be appropriate to
indicate walkability?
How the map looks now in iD: http://i.imgur.com/2EQ06BR.jpg
What I'd propose to do (note the connections):
http://i.imgur.com/i8dj6lQ.jpg
Area of the examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/38.45143/-75.04957
Thanks,
Contrary to the other replies, why not just teach the routers that
beaches are something that can be walked (or ridden or driven) on?
Access restrictions can go on the beach itself, with bicycle tags if
it's explicitly forbidden. There's no documented default value of
surface for a beach, but sand is probably a decent guess. The beach can
already be tagged with fee=*. Paths can connect to the beach area. All
of this is already set and available for use by routers.
If you add a separate path, a router can't know whether it needs to
apply the fee from the surrounding beach or not. If you also tag fee on
the path, a user won't know whether having paid the fee for the beach
also entitles them use of the path, or whether they can pay just for
walking rights and not swimming. Surface needs to get tagged multiple
times, as do any access restrictions. And in the end, it's really just
not a path anyway.
That said, I understand the appeal of just making things work now, and I
wouldn't be too beat up about it if paths do get added.
--Andrew
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
