Hi Greg, In the case I showed, I would probably have tagged it as you mention in view A as there is a parking aisle drawn. However, many small car parks do not have parking aisles, and in that case I would not probably draw a footpath right across the car park and would go for view B. As one can normally walk anywhere on a car park, by definition you can also walk around the edge to any connected point, hence it seems reasonable to me to add the car park perimeter as foot routable. If you use Foot (OSRM) instead of Foot (GraphHopper) for OSM routing, it does take you around the edge of the car park. For vehicles, I would only expect a car park to be a start point or an end point, so it does not need to be routable. In the case of a fence, the route around the edge is a routing artefact and you would actually walk across it, so if two paths join a car park you should be able to walk between them whether or not there is a fence around the edge. Perhaps a better solution would be to join each point that stops at the edge of a car park together with a routable way. A new option to handle this? Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Greg Troxel [mailto:gdt@lexort.com] Sent: 27 July 2020 17:53 To: Mike Baggaley <mike@tvage.co.uk> Cc: 'Gerd Petermann' <gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com>; 'Development list for mkgmap' <mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements "Mike Baggaley" <mike@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.