Robin Paulson <robin.paulson <at> gmail.com> writes: >I walk a lot, and would like a routing engine which understands i can >take a direct route across an open public space, such as a park, >without needing a footpath to be explicitly drawn in. the existing >routing engines don't seem to understand this. > >or am i missing a tag? do i need to tag parks, etc. with "area=yes" >"foot=yes", "access=yes" or would that be a case of "tagging for the >routing engine"
There are pedestrian areas in cities (rendered by Mapnik as a kind of grey blob) which I assume routing engines can manage. But by convention parks in OSM have explicit footways marked across them, and I guess routing engines rely on that rather than allowing you to walk anywhere. Not all park land is walkable - some can be trees or bushes - so some extra tagging is needed. But I think this unwalkable land is the exception so it's that land that should be tagged, rather than adding foot=yes areas for almost everywhere. I suppose a routing engine would impose a small penalty for walking directly across grass, so explicit paths would still be favoured if they exist. I suggest you file bugs against the routing engines and see what they say. As a rough rule, leisure=park and landuse=grass could be considered walkable, unless tagged access=no or access=private. -- Ed Avis <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
