Imagine a field or a park. It has many locations to reach its boundaries from the surrounding geometry. Within the field itself it is open and people can walk anywhere within it.

How should something like this be mapped? leisure=park + area=yes?

An alternative approach considered is to map paths within the field, but all the combinations of possible routes is too much to add.

asked 29 Aug, 18:33

coolmule0's gravatar image

coolmule0
1014
accept rate: 0%


Hi, I would suggest leisure=park if it is a recognised park open to the public.

Plus landuse=recreation_ground if the park is used as a recreation ground.

Plus foot=designated to show the status of the whole area as being accessible on foot.

Plus any other relevant access tags, ie dog=leashed, horse=no, cycle=no.

Specific paths, desire path lines or prominent ways can also be mapped to show permanent, through or desire routes.

permanent link

answered 30 Aug, 08:22

BCNorwich's gravatar image

BCNorwich
5.4k54379
accept rate: 21%

As far as I know, there are only two tag combos that are generally understood to indicate an omnidirectional foot-navigable area: highway=pedestrian + area=yes and highway=footway + area=yes.

"Park" can mean many things, and if a particular park satisfies the definition of highway=pedestrian or highway=footway then that's a fine approach. But neither of these is appropriate for a grassy area or field.

Note that the area=yes tag is only required for something that's normally a linear way (like a highway). A park mapped as way will already be considered an area, and so adding the area=yes tag to a park will be flagged as an error.

Also, parks often include features that can't be walked directly though, eg, hedges, ponds, playgrounds, or simply challenging terrain. So no sensible routing software would ever consider a park to be an omnidirectional foot-navigable area.

For a public grassy area, consider the tag landuse=recreation_ground, which is sometimes used within parks, and sometimes on its own. IMO it implies an unpaved area that's omnidirectionally navigable by foot -- although I doubt that any current routing software would process it that way.

If you really need to make sure that routers will find a way through the area in question, you need to draw paths or footways. If the area is completely open and there really are no paths, then adding them is a convenient fiction, not ideal but forgivable. This is the best we can do with current tagging, best I understand.

permanent link

answered 30 Aug, 05:01

jmapb's gravatar image

jmapb
2.9k73054
accept rate: 22%

edited 30 Aug, 16:30

Thank you for the thorough answer. Your notice of often include features that can't be walked directly though is very useful. In the particular case I am looking at though, it has been purposely made fully navigable by foot.

(30 Aug, 20:14) coolmule0

The point is that, because parks often contain navigational obstacles (even if this particular one doesn't), routing software may have a disincentive to assign omnidirectional navigability based on the leisure=park tag. But this is a purely theoretical concern. If the place in question is a park, then tagging it as a park is correct, full stop.

(30 Aug, 21:58) jmapb

Hi have a look here, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark some pages of the Wiki concerning tagging parks. I would not route the park paths together at all, just what people do, let them walk around.

permanent link

answered 29 Aug, 19:33

Hendrikklaas's gravatar image

Hendrikklaas
9.2k190226377
accept rate: 5%

Hi have a look here, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark some pages of the Wiki concerning tagging parks. I would not route the park paths together at all, just what people do, let them walk around.

I am trying to delete a double message, but so far no luck.

permanent link

answered 29 Aug, 19:33

Hendrikklaas's gravatar image

Hendrikklaas
9.2k190226377
accept rate: 5%

edited 29 Aug, 22:17

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×47

question asked: 29 Aug, 18:33

question was seen: 205 times

last updated: 30 Aug, 21:58

powered by OSQA