Just another idea.... Is it possible to make the car park a (pseudo) node that is on all the paths that connect to the car park?
John Thorn On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 12:00, <mkgmap-dev-requ...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> wrote: > Send mkgmap-dev mailing list submissions to > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mkgmap-dev-requ...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mkgmap-dev-ow...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of mkgmap-dev digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: default style lines enhancements (Ticker Berkin) > 2. Virtual paths (ael) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> > To: mkgmap development <mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:58:30 +0100 > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements > Hi all > > In some major walking areas there are networks of paths with a few car > parks around the edge, normally set 100m or so into the park/woods. The > free maps one can obtain show suggested trails and these trails often > cross multiple car parks. The maps probably don't show a path within > the car park and there is no physical manifestation of it. > > Without "paths around car park", if I try to use my device to generate > a walking route to some feature in the area (or back to the start), it > will probably generate a route that leaves the area, gets onto the > closest road, and re-enters elsewhere. Or it might give a "Route > Calculation Error" because paths closest to the start or end are not > connected to the rest of the network. > > With the data as it stands, for sensible routes in the above situation > and others as expressed in my earlier email, mkgmap needs to generate > footways that join up all ways that lead into the car park with a > footway. With the current technology this can be done with > circumference footway and mkgmap:set_{semi_/un}connected_type provide a > really good way of not doing this where the footway won't solve any > routing issue and might cause routing island problems. > > I wouldn't object if OSM mappers joined all paths and the entrance > road/parking aisles within the car park and maybe there should be a > policy to do this and then there is no problem. > > However, there is a good argument that the correct OSM mapping is to > show paths exactly as they are and not have to invent and add 'virtual' > bits of footpath just to keep routing engines working sensibly because > "mkgmap expects it like that". > > Other things that have been mentioned: > > - What about a path that runs up to or along the side of a car park but > there is no access between them, eg an enclosed car park with a road > along-side. I'd say that this is just incorrect mapping if the car park > shares a node with the road but there is a barrier between. > > - If starting within the car park, the route might tell you to walk > around the edge rather that direct to the highway. Yes and no; it will > plot a route to the closest edge and then to the best exit for the > final destination; It should be obvious to the GPS user that they can > just walk directly to the best exit. Without the change the only option > you might get is onto the road network which could be entirely wrong. > > Ticker > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ael <witwa...@disroot.org> > To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:44:52 +0100 > Subject: [mkgmap-dev] Virtual paths > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:58:30AM +0100, Ticker Berkin wrote: > > road/parking aisles within the car park and maybe there should be a > > policy to do this and then there is no problem. > > > > However, there is a good argument that the correct OSM mapping is to > > show paths exactly as they are and not have to invent and add 'virtual' > > bits of footpath just to keep routing engines working sensibly because > > "mkgmap expects it like that". > > Not just mkgmap. It is a general problem. Maybe OSM should introduce > a new relation "connected"? That is one or more ways and/or points could > be members implying that it is possible to navigate (perhaps directly) > between any of them. That would solve many of the problems for all > routers. This idea needs expansion: a tag on the relation would specify > the mode of transport, although I guess this would be mainly foot. > Likewise, some sort of seasonal tag would be useful. But most of those > already exist for ways, so I suppose those could be just be applied to > the relation as well. > > Just musing out loud. If it seems sensible, maybe a proposal on the > tagging list? > > ael > > > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev