On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:35 PM, moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/03/2015, Mike N <nice...@att.net> wrote: > > On 3/10/2015 12:56 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> If I understand correctly that you want routing to cross a park as long > >> as the way in and the way out are connected to the perimeter of the > >> park. This is only correct in parks where you are free to walk anywhere. > >> Most parks in continental Europe do not work this way. Typically, but > >> not always, you have to stay on the paths. > >> > >> To solve this, one needs possibly a new (?) tag for parks like > >> stay_on_path=yes|no > > > > I agree - there needs to be areas of general walk permission established > > before a router can include that area. > Or the router could have an affinity for the path but not so aggressively avoid it if there's not a barrier way more substantial than bollard in the way... > Another common usecase is surface car parks. You've got lots of > pedestrian paths that lead to it, but nothing explicit inside it, and > even following the service=parking_aisle ways would be too > restrictive. These could be mapped as highway=surface, area=yes anyway (not sure how well routing engines actually handle this, but navigable areas are hardly unique to carparks).
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
