OpenStreetMap

Floating Islands

Posted by mwbg on 7 September 2011 in English (English)

How does on denote a walkway between (in this case) two fields ? KeepRight is complaining that the way is not connected to the rest of the map.

I could do a pseudo-footway to connect it to nearby footways, but what's the point ? You can generally walk any way you like across such a field, so marking out a specific footway is a bit silly.

Location: Malvern CP, Malvern Hills, Worcestershire, West Midlands, England, United Kingdom

Comment from RM87 on 7 September 2011 at 11:47

If this path/track/footway it is really not connected to anything else (which in rare cases happens) then mark this error as false positive in keep right. Keep right, OSM inspector, etc. all give you only hints what may be wrong. Determining whether it is really wrong or not is up to you.

Hide this comment

Comment from quantumstate on 7 September 2011 at 20:45

Even if there aren't clearly defined paths on the ground it might be worth adding some for routing and to clarify for people looking at the map that they can walk across the area.

I think this is valid because the map is representing reality since people will walk this route, just the path happens to be wide and indistinct in reality.

Hide this comment

Comment from z-dude on 8 September 2011 at 02:46

ditto on the 'false positive' you're mapping what is there.
For routing, perhaps a gps should be able to route you across fields.

Hide this comment

Comment from wieland on 8 September 2011 at 06:31

May you can map it as an walkable area
area = yes
bicycle = yes
highway = pedestrian
like
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/34116206
?

Hide this comment

Comment from daveemtb on 8 September 2011 at 07:19

I wouldn't map it as a pedestrian highway/plaza if it's a field. I wold have thought that
area=yes
foot=yes
bicycle=yes (if applicable)
alongside whatever tags you would normally tag this kind of field with should be adequate. Routers and data checkers may not be able to make use of this yet. However, in many places you cannot simply walk across any field, so it wouldn't be sensible IMHO to have routers assume that you can walk across any field.

Is it a playing field or agricultural field out of interest?

Hide this comment

Comment from wieland on 8 September 2011 at 12:18

My point was, that it is already possible and used to map walkable areas.
Router should assume that you can walk across any field that is mapped as area=yes and foot=yes.
www.openrouteservice.org can do it.
In the example there is a building in the walkable area, which is not walkable.

See
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?start=8.673974,50.114579&end=8.672246,50.115322&pref=Pedestrian&lang=de&zoom=18&lat=50.11501&lon=8.67311&layers=TB000TFFTFTTTTTT
versus
http://openrouteservice.org/index.php?start=8.673974,50.114579&end=8.672001,50.116375&pref=Pedestrian&lang=de&zoom=18&lat=50.11501&lon=8.67311&layers=TB000TFFTFTTTTTT

Hide this comment

Leave a comment

Parsed with Markdown

  • Headings

    # Heading
    ## Subheading

  • Unordered list

    * First item
    * Second item

  • Ordered list

    1. First item
    2. Second item

  • Link

    [Text](URL)
  • Image

    ![Alt text](URL)

Login to leave a comment