Database scripts: landuse

[afischerdev]

How are we deciding which landuse is desirable? I think allotments aren't the most desirable to bike through to be honest. Furthermore, if vineyards are in there, I see no reason not to add meadow, farmland and grass. Also leisure == golf_course could be considered.

Originally posted by @jakobwalter in https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/754#issuecomment-2573825430

[EssBee59]

Hello, I started the calculation/evaluation of the pseudo-tags 2 years ago, no detailed requests (not to mention specifications!) were available at this time. That for I had to define a list of pseudo-tags and for each the usage AND the parameters for calculation. More or less, everything is based on my own experience with biking!

(See discussion in: https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/486 )

I defined the “forest” (or “green-factor” pseudo-tag) as “interesting area for bikers with green character”. ==>green do not mean here the colour of the environment (as ex. meadow!) but a kind of attractive area

Forest is mostly present in the nature; I prefer a route there when the wind is quite stopped by the trees or in hot summers to get shadow

I add further areas, as example “vineyards”: As explained in https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/486 I am living in Germany where such areas are attractive and sometimes very attractive. The romantic Rhin-region between Wiesbaden and Coblence or the Bergstrasse between Darmstadt and Heidelberg are some examples.

About allotments: These small gardens in urban or suburban areas are today mostly used for growing flowers, trees, etc.. It would be an insult to the small gardeners (especially in the UK!) not to take them into account!

Now, if you seriously liked to consider meadows, farms or golf-place (not without danger for bikers) please create a detailed request If you think, the consideration of vineyard or allotments leads to routing-errors, please create a defect based on the routing result (not on the programm-code)

Thank for using the Brouter, thank for any contribution that can extend his functionalty

[mcliquid]

Please forgive me for not finding any information on how the values were determined in the first place. If all this has already been addressed, please just ignore it.

If I have my cycling glasses on and, looking through the values in the SQL file, I think to myself:

1. If we include orchards and vineyards, why not also farmland?
2. It shouldn't get too complicated, but I'm sure tags with more detail like landuse=greenhouse_horticulture could add value too?
3. If landuse=forest is taken into account, wouldn't natural=wood be a logical synonym?
4. For me, areas with natural=grassland, heath, fell, tundra etc. would also be relevant, as I would expect extensive natural areas here without a lot of car traffic.

[wltrr]

Thank you for all your work on Brouter and the Pseudotags! I am convinced that they are one of the features that make it possible for me to consistently find nice routes using Brouter.

I see that there was already quite some discussion about the pseudotags in #486. I agree that it is not possible to create tags that please everybody as preferences vary by location and by individual. To give some examples for which I would like to reduce costs of the router based on the "greenness" of the surroundings:

• Fresdorf (landuse=farmland), currently estimated_forest_class=1 Mapillary Brouter-Web
• Fahrland (landuse=farmland), currently estimated_forest_class=0 Mapillary Brouter-Web
• Wildenbruch (landuse=farmland, leisure=golf_course), currently estimated_forest_class=0 Mapillary Brouter-Web
• Schiaß (landuse=meadow), currently estimated_forest_class=0 Mapillary Brouter-Web

I don't think it is worth arguing over allotments, golf course etc. as they will have a negligible effect on routing. However, looking at taginfo.openstreemap.org, i think I am justified in thinking that adding farmland and meadow would make quite a difference. Also natural has more interesting tags one could consider.

[EssBee59]

4. areas with natural=grassland, heath, fell, tundra etc. would also be relevant, as I would expect extensive natural areas here without a lot of car traffic.

It seems here, traffic and green-character are confused: The pseudo-tag "forest / green character" is not really helpfull to avoid traffic: It gives information about the environment of the way you are using, not on the traffic on that way (a motorway or primary whithin a forest have the "green" tag set!)

To avoid traffic you can use the pseudo-tag "estimated_traffic_class"!

Another remark on landuse "meadow" and "farmland": First somes statistic in Europe for that:

Currently considered... select count(*) from polygons q where ((q.landuse in ('forest','allotments','flowerbed','orchard','vineyard','recreation_ground','village_green') ) or q.leisure in ( 'garden','park', 'nature_reserve'))

8365986

adding farmland... select count(*) from polygons q where ((q.landuse = 'farmland'));

6271666

adding meadow... select count(*) from polygons q where ((q.landuse = 'meadow'));

4216060

If we consider all landuses above, I think most of the surfaces will be considered.../ the tag will probably exist by all ways on land?

and then you have noch chance to favour a route in forest (initial use case: get shadow or less wind)