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... 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.