|
I suggested to a keen walker that he may find route generation of the finer detail between points useful. He asked me why this one didn't work https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.9794%2C0.0712%3B51.9868%2C0.0875#map=14/51.9845/0.0985 Looking at the edit history I find that a mapper a few months ago decided bridleway should do the job ( and it should do, but does not) and he deleted foot=yes. I have restored foot=yes so that foot route(s) can successfully be generated along these footpaths. They won't work immediately but hopefully will in a few days when my edit has been assimilated by the routing engine, graphhopper in this case. Am I incorrect? |
|
The "foot" tag should indicate the legal status of foot access on that bridleway. The one in question is a "designation=public_bridleway" in England and Wales, which implies foot=yes, bicycle=yes and horse=yes. I would apply each of those tags to this bridleway. There are a couple of reasons why it's important to add "=yes" here and not rely on routers being able to understand that foot access on bridleways is allowed. One is that some bridleways are permissive bridleways (perhaps horse=permissive and foot=permissive rather than horse=yes and foot=yes) and it's important to be able to record the difference. If the tags are missing there's no way to know whether the values are just unknown or "assumed to be the defaults" (whatever that is). The other reason is that it makes sense to use tags that everyone understands, like basic access tags, in addition to things like "designation" (maps and apps developed outside the UK will have no idea what that is). Note that the concept of a public bridleway doesn't even apply to the whole of the UK, just England and Wales. 1
Another point worth making here is that the two routers available on openstreetmap.org are basically just there as a proof of concept to show that you can use OSM data for routing. I don't believe that either uses location-specific routing rules, so you end up with rubbish like this: What's happening there is that the router thinks that the trunk road has been mapped in accordance with how they are mapped in Germany (which the rest of the world uses "motorroad" for) and, despite there being a nice separate footpath across the bridge and a sidewalk everywhere else, you're not allowed to walk on it. As with everything like this, I'm sure that "pull requests are welcome" - if someone wanted to add logic to handle where you can walk on sidewalks alongside trunk roads (and where you can cycle on the pavement in Australia, and on motorways in the USA) I'm sure that the operators of this router would be interested.
(21 Mar '22, 11:10)
SomeoneElse ♦
|
|
You are correct. Or at least when I did similar locally in 2019 it worked. 1
Thanks Ed. I accepted SomeoneElse answer because of all the other info. Thanks both of you.
(21 Mar '22, 11:26)
andy mackey
|
Routing is now working with graphhoper and OSRM. I did the edit two days ago.
I have added this https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/andy%20mackey/diary/398912 and this https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/andy%20mackey/diary