(routable) area highways: Contradicting statements about the validity of their use, and question about overlayed linear ways

Help and support
, ,
1

Ahoj,

the :arrow_upper_right: OpenStreetMap wiki says that (routable) area highways (i.e. highway=*, e.g. highway=footway, toghether with area=yes) are supported and to be used in cases where there really is no clear linear way to walk along but an area to roam along, like a city square.

In this case, in my opinion it is superfluous (and maybe even disturbing) to additionally add a linear way on top of the area way, as it is done for example for :arrow_upper_right: this feature in OSM (you even clearly see the rendered footpaths on top of the pedestrian zone. (If the footpath would be tagged as highway=pedestrian, in the “standard” rendering they might not be rendered distinctively, but that also breaks away if we have an highway=footway with area=yes and an additional linear highway=footway on top of it)).

But it is still done. Maybe for routing engines.

And :arrow_upper_right: here+:arrow_upper_right: here the person from “Wanderreitkarte.de” argues that routable area highways (i.e. highway=* with area=yes) should not be used at all, but that always linear ways should be used, and area:highway=* added as a decoration only, and that the current support of many routing engines to route on the edges of area highways is only an unintended side-effect, and that the tagging should be done to follow what is widely supported (by the routing engines).
So I am more and more confused.
(And if indeed highway=footway, area=yes without an overlayed linear highway=footway is correct, then I would be happy about an official statement that can be passed on to the person from wanderreitkarte.de. If not, I want to be corrected and will say sorry to the wanderreitkarte.de-person.)

It seems that I have made some mistakes around :arrow_upper_right: this tram stop already, and since I want to clean that up, I also want to make the other stuff correct now.

(Also feel free to report here any other issues found arund :arrow_upper_right: this tram stop, e.g. the :arrow_upper_right: highway=platform is questionable, and the highway=platform, area=yes has an additional linear highway=footway on top of it, whereas besides are highway=footway, area=yes without linear footway but here they would make sense, …)

Regards!

2

(It might have been easier to keep this discussion going in the other thread.)

For new areas I’m adding myself, my personal mental rubric is more-or-less:
“Can this space for pedestrians be reasonably represented by a single centerline?” → area:highway=*
“Does this space for pedestrians exist to facilitate arbitrary connections between any two points on its border?” → highway=pedestrian+area=yes

5 Likes
3

Do you know if routers generally route through highway=pedestrian area=yes?

4

As a rule they don’t, though many will route around them (i.e. along the boundary).

3 Likes
5

Here someone writes

-by WAYS with area (polygon) the “highway” tag is not longer allowed (see “problem” message above)

and also mentioned a warning from the OSM web editor complaining about a highway mapped as area=yes.

In the end, there is stated

The right place to discuss the recommendations and the allowed/not allowed mappings is not in this routing app, please clarify these points with OSM.

So, it seems that (people think that) highway=* with area=yes is no longer allowed.

Hm.

So, can an authorative answer be given? Because that comment over there sounds pretty authorative, too, but contradicting what is told here.

6

By design, no one in the OSM ecosystem (whether mappers, data consumers, Wiki contributors, or otherwise) can give you an authoritative answer to these types of questions - only their (ideally, well-informed) opinions and summaries of general community consensus.

5 Likes