Bonjour,
Oui je connais bien Umap (et Framacarte), utilisé pour faire la carte des projets routiers en France :
https://framacarte.org/fr/map/projets-routiers-en-france_127698

Pour la Crém'Arbre c'est a minima un lieu-dit maintenant. Je ne sais pas si "hamlet" pourrait convenir dans OSM.

Bonjour,
Je pense que le wiki veut dire "légal" au sens du camping sauvage, pas d'une zone à défendre face un un projet qui fait l'objet de recours, qui ne seront jugés sur le fond que cette année ?
Pas sûr que le site soit lui-même illégal (n'est-ce pas sur un terrain privé ?)
Je n'ai pas trouvé de meilleur tag, je suis ouvert à la discussion.
Le fait est qu'il y a un campement ici, que la Crém'Arbre est située là depuis un moment, et peut-être encore pour longtemps. Google Maps la référence. Ce serait bien qu'elle soit aussi sur OSM, car on nous demande souvent où c'est.

Hi,
Thank you for your patience. The mapping does not seem to have improved the routing. I propose to add again virtual footpaths if you want, until OSM provides a solution (e.g. a "virtual" tag between all entrances, for routers). See for instance note/1590336#map=19/51.50749/-0.12664 and this debate: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64478 .

Hello,
Indeed, this is not good.
Please note that OSM is not a router but a database. There are many routers relying on OSM, not all of them have the same behaviour (and most of them having poor performance with pedestrian areas).
If you want to add virtual paths, please do so.
I have just made an edition in order to join rue de Rémusat and the edge of rue d'Alsace-Lorraine. I think it is the right way to connect them. This way, I hope the router will understand it can go from the one to the other at any point of the border. Let us wait and see :-)

Please look at this one :-)
area=*
Note: Most pedestrian routing algorithms do not currently route (correctly) across area features, tending to route around the edge or not at all (especially in case of multipolygons). Do not alter your mapping to accommodate such routers.

I have tried the routing without this little path, and it seems good enough to me:
osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=43.60800%2C1.44564%3B43.60677%2C1.44564

I think that the pedestrian area "rue d'Alsace Lorraine" should share some nodes with the connected streets. But very few routers handle pedestrian ways, anyway, they generally use only the borders of the way (this is the case here).
As a general principle, you should not map for the routers, and only consider the "visible" paths.

Hello,
These streets are connected "everywhere", since rue d'Alsace-Lorraine is a pedestrian way. There is no physical path specially here. So you may add this path, but you could as well add some more paths between these streets. Note that we do not want to tag for the routers.
Regards