Thank you for all the feedback so far.
I think that tagging "logical" footpaths as being logical is _not_ "tagging for the <your use case>". If I interpret [1] correctly, this phrase refers to the mis-use of tags. The mis-used tag has no semantic meaning for the original object. Example: Using `natural=wood` to obtain a green area, although the object has nothing to do with wood.
On wiki pages like [2], paths for pedestrians always refer to a physical linear structure. I haven't found a documentation on how to deal with paths which do not refer to a physical linear structure. The information whether a footway is "real" path or a "virtual" resp. "logical" path, is a semantic property of the mapped object. I don't want to delete those paths, as it seems that too many people rely on them. But I still think there needs to be a method to identify such routes.
As mentioned in an earlier post, one way to identify "logical" or "virtual" paths is with a relation to an area tagged `highway=pedestrian`. To me, this is a bit complicated and may cause unintended side effects when editing any object in the relation.
So, as far as I can tell, there are three options:
1. do nothing 2. assign a special tag to a "virtual" footpath 3. identify a "virtual path" by relation to an area tagged `highway=pedestrian`.
Any thoughts on these options?
Thanks Stephan
[1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer [2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
2017-10-08 15:14 GMT+02:00 Stefan Keller sfkeller@gmail.com:
IMHO there should be no tagging for the routing enginges, very much like there should be no tagging for the renderer. In fact, I did found almost no tags related to "virtual" paths in taginfo. I'm confident that routing engines with pedestrian profiles will have optimized routing over areas/plazas in urban areas rather sooner than later (see "area/plaza routing for pedestrian/bike"). One of challenges routing engines currently face, is that until now their preprocessing did not include areas (polygons, multipolygon relations), since they concentrated on linear geometries.
:Stefan
P.S. BTW It's also an issue when the pedestrian route starts or ends in
areas.
2017-10-06 23:32 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse selfishseahorse@gmail.com:
On 6 October 2017 at 22:23, Raphael Das Gupta (das-g) lists.openstreetmap.ch@raphael.dasgupta.ch wrote:
Is that so, even if the roads are also mapped?
Currently, Mapzen and GraphHopper car routers on osm.org navigate along the street right through the area of highway=pedestrian multipolygon
Sorry, my message wasn't clear. What I meant was that pedestrian relations don't work for *pedestrian routing* and that pedestrian areas imply that pedestrians can move freely on that area, which is not true, because there are also roads (this is rather a logical than a rendering/routing issue).
As an example, GraphHopper and Maps.me route pedestrians through Münsterhof in Zürich (only along the edges though) [1] but not through Lindenplatz [2]. Münsterhof is tagged as a closed way, Lindenplatz as a multipolygon. Mapzen isn't able to route pedestrians through both squares. [3][4]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=47...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=47...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=47.3703...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=47.3873...
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch