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