Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation
This proposal is incorrectly giving the impression that it is in the spirit of the crossing:markings tag. This tag was meant to complement and refine the existing tagging of crossings in some cases, but certainly not to replace, wholesale the "crossing" key The crossing:markings key describes the painting on the road surface, not the legal situation for the traffic participants, and it also leaves out the vertical signals (which BTW here in Italy have precedence over the horizontal signs in case of conflict) The statement " As such, I propose to approve crossing:signals=* and additionally deprecate crossing=* (except crossing=no)." is not in the spirit of the crossing:markings wiki page is unworkable: there are some several million crossing=* tags and it als cannot replace the existing tagging (example: "crossing:markings=pictogram" does not replace the tagging highway=path plus bicycle=designatet plus foot=designated plus segregated=yes on the crossing way) Also what is the meaning of crossing=no? Please note that I am not saying that the actual tagging practice is good or uniform. Volker (mapping cyclist in NE Italy) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] care services
Hello, I created a wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Dpersonal_service with some suggestions of subtags. Any feedback, suggestion, correction is most welcome. Thanks. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation
Vào lúc 02:08 2022-12-01, Volker Schmidt đã viết: This proposal is incorrectly giving the impression that it is in the spirit of the crossing:markings tag. This tag was meant to complement and refine the existing tagging of crossings in some cases, but certainly not to replace, wholesale the "crossing" key The crossing:markings key describes the painting on the road surface, not the legal situation for the traffic participants, and it also leaves out the vertical signals (which BTW here in Italy have precedence over the horizontal signs in case of conflict) The logical analogue to the successful crossing:markings=* proposal would be a proposal for a crossing:signals=* key that introduces options beyond what mappers can already express (in a Babelesque manner) using the various crossing=* tags -- without impinging on the entrenched interests behind crossing=zebra/uncontrolled/marked. I'm working on such a proposal, in part to close a gap that mappers in my region experience acutely. [1] Unfortunately, I didn't manage to complete it before this more aggressive proposal went to an RfC. I just hope this proposed deprecation doesn't poison the well for crossing:signals=* once it's ready. The original 2019 proposal for crossing:signals=* made the same mistake of touching the sensitive crossing=* key. Also what is the meaning of crossing=no? crossing=no is for where the road geometry etc. would suggest a pedestrian crossing but there isn't one. Some jurisdictions have standard signs for this situation. It's probably more common in regions where there are laws against jaywalking. If we're really serious about deprecating crossing=*, then a more systematized tag could be not:highway=crossing, now that the not:* prefix is fairly well-established. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Crossing_signalization -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation
2022-12-01 23:37 skrev Minh Nguyen: Vào lúc 02:08 2022-12-01, Volker Schmidt đã viết: This proposal is incorrectly giving the impression that it is in the spirit of the crossing:markings tag. This tag was meant to complement and refine the existing tagging of crossings in some cases, but certainly not to replace, wholesale the "crossing" key The crossing:markings key describes the painting on the road surface, not the legal situation for the traffic participants, and it also leaves out the vertical signals (which BTW here in Italy have precedence over the horizontal signs in case of conflict) The logical analogue to the successful crossing:markings=* proposal would be a proposal for a crossing:signals=* key that introduces options beyond what mappers can already express (in a Babelesque manner) using the various crossing=* tags -- without impinging on the entrenched interests behind crossing=zebra/uncontrolled/marked. I'm working on such a proposal, in part to close a gap that mappers in my region experience acutely. [1] Unfortunately, I didn't manage to complete it before this more aggressive proposal went to an RfC. I just hope this proposed deprecation doesn't poison the well for crossing:signals=* once it's ready. The original 2019 proposal for crossing:signals=* made the same mistake of touching the sensitive crossing=* key. Also what is the meaning of crossing=no? crossing=no is for where the road geometry etc. would suggest a pedestrian crossing but there isn't one. Some jurisdictions have standard signs for this situation. It's probably more common in regions where there are laws against jaywalking. If we're really serious about deprecating crossing=*, then a more systematized tag could be not:highway=crossing, now that the not:* prefix is fairly well-established. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Crossing_signalization Given the feedback and comments for this proposal, I don't intend on moving to voting. I will support your proposal to only approve crossing:signals (with extensions). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
