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. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Greg Troxel [mailto:gdt@lexort.com] Sent: 27 July 2020 17:15 To: Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com> Cc: Development list for mkgmap <mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com> writes:
Hi all,
I have two reasons why I don't like to create routable ways for objects which are not meant to be routable ways: 1) Some mappers get it wrong and start to change OSM data to the worse because "mkgmap expects it like that"
Didn't think of that but strongly agreed.
2) If a routable way is not mapped as such or not connected correctly in OSM it should be fixed in OSM.
Completely agreed and that's what I meant to say.
Besides I doubt that the additional ways help if you are on the car park and start to calculate a route. IIGTR It might tell you to walk around the car park instead of drawing a straight line to the next highway.
What I meant is that foot routes like this are found https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=42.46 043%2C-71.35108%3B42.46162%2C-71.34935 but that's a case of correct OSM data, as it should be. I think Ticker is saying that sometimes the footpath is joined to the amenity=parking polygon, instead of the service road, and correct routing does not magically jump over that gap.