On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 12:01 +1300, Robin Paulson wrote: > > That's nonsense. A way does not show a right of passage. A > > particularly tagged way shows a right of passage. And a park is a > > particularly tagged way.
No, a park *CAN BE* a particularly tagged way. Just like a road, if it isnt tagged properly with oneway/access/barrier/etc, the routing will be inaccurate. > this is all true guys, but it's getting away form the point: parks are > only one implementation/manifestation of the situation. i'm enquiring > about routing across areas in general, and whether anyone does/will do > it. One example of this, could be parking areas. Shopping centres for example have organised parking areas, with defined ways and spaces. Other areas, for example a showground, might simply have a big dirt parking area. Or a playing field, which in suburban areas might be an open field that you can walk across, but for a more formal field or stadium, youre unlikely to be able to walk across. > whether or not this is across a park is only a small (and possibly > irrelevant) part of the issue. whether or not the area has been tagged > correctly is only part of the issue Actually, the fact that its not tagged correctly is a big part of the issue. The renderer has to make assumptions if its not tagged. If there was a tagging scheme to indicate that an area was traversable, then routing engines could start to use it, but Id hate for a routing engine to try and take a short cut 'as the crow flies' through an area which hasnt got ways marked to follow. To take that to a further level, what if someone marked a national park as an area, should routers simply show a route ATCF or should it only route through a national park area if there is a way to follow? David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk