[EDIT: The previous figure is back. The above paragraph can be disregarded]
But more to the point, I have been testing that walking-trail routing distortion effect and cannot reproduce it.
If I understand the routing distortion, if a walking trail gets closer to the destination than anything else, one will be routed as close to the walking trail as possible and NOT as close to the destination as possible even if the walking trail is disconnected from the road network. However, while testing in a local situation I could not reproduce this.
The situation involves a parking lot followed by a 5-minute walking path leading to a theme park ("Roaring Camp") railway station. The Google pin is at the railway station, which is generally accepted as the heart of the theme park, not the parking lot some distance away. I have not tried to move the Google pin nor do I think it should be moved in this case.
Sharing a boundary with the theme park is a State Park with good roads. Those roads come much closer to the railway station than the Roaring Camp parking lot road.
- With no walking trail, routing to Roaring Camp takes one into the adjacent State Park.
- With a connected walking trail, routing to Roaring Camp takes one to the correct parking lot, but then apparently (according to a UR) one is advised one still has 5 minutes to go. This is in fact quite accurate but it surprised the driver who thought Waze wouldn't and shouldn't think about that.
- But if I disconnect the walking trail from the Roaring Camp parking-lot road, leaving a gap of just 10 feet or so, routing again takes the driver to the adjacent State Park.