Mapping a grassy navigable area

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.

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.

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.