>> >> One day OSM will be able to route me from Linkwood Avenue to Pine Bay >> >> Drive >> >> through the park >> >> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.07187&lon=-82.550402&zoom=18&layers=M), >> >> saving me 50 minutes of walking. >> > >> > Imagine if you tried to save 50min by getting routed across Albert >> > Park[1]. That big thing in the middle of the screen is a lake that >> > extends almost the entire length of the park, hence you'll notice all >> > the walking paths have been mapped in, to allow you to be routed through >> > the park appropriately. >> >> You forgot the link, so I'm going to imagine that the lake was mapped. >> Obviously a lake is by default foot=no. > > My mistake, sorry. The link I tried to post before, is > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.84597&lon=144.97075&zoom=16 > > If you look at aerial imagery, you'll see most of the park is open > grassland and the lake, however there is a path network in the park, > which is appropriately mapped and tagged.
Right. Clearly the lake is not routeable, and any routing engine would have to route around the lake :). The fact that the non-routability of the lake takes precedence over the routability of the park would be for the same reason that a lake is rendered on top of a park. Anyway, I looked around at a few places labelled leisure=park, and the usage is all over the place. I'd say based on that very unscientific sample that it's probably best for routers to use a default of access=unknown for leisure=park areas, and only use parks for short cuts if they're explicitly tagged with something like foot=permissive. Alternatively, I guess it wouldn't be horrible to add something like a highway=shortcut tag, so mappers could be explicit about it. If we've gotta add foot=permissive by hand anyway, it's not that much more work to add a few extra ways. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk