[mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements
From Greg Troxel gdt at lexort.com on Mon Jul 27 17:52:59 BST 2020
"Mike Baggaley" <mike at tvage.co.uk> writes: > I create foot routable (but not vehicle routable) ways around car parks in > my style (I don't use the default style). This allows pedestrian routing > around the car park in cases like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=42.45 > 938%2C-71.35133%3B42.45856%2C-71.35058 which is a few yards away from the > previous example. It is common for footpaths to start at the edge of a car > park and in my opinion it is incorrect to add to OSM a non-existent footpath > across a car park purely for the purposes of routing. That's really something to bring up on tagging. As I see it there are two views: A) one should continue the footpath in a way that represents how a person could walk to connect it to the parking aisles (that they also can walk on). While there isn't something that is visibibly a footpath, there is in fact a place you can continue to walk from the edge of the lot to the parking aisle/driveway. B) Really there is a surface and one can walk anywhere there isn't a car parked, and thus the footpath should only represent the footpath and be joined to the edge. Thus the carpark is really a routable pedestrian area. This should either be the default or it should be tagged this way. Two comments: I think A is the majority view in OSM by a wide margin. In B, you have to somehow deal with a fence around the lot, and be careful not to create routable ways that can't be traversed. In this case, there is a fence on the SW side (not shown in OSM probably) but I think not on the NW side.
- Previous message: [mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements
- Next message: [mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list