"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.