[mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements

Mon Jul 27 17:38:02 BST 2020

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 at lexort.com] 
Sent: 27 July 2020 17:15
To: Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
Cc: Development list for mkgmap <mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] default style lines enhancements

Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at 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.