Hi Florimand!
This is an interesting situation. Would it be possible to draw an overhead
diagram of the situation in question? Also, is this a tag that could
potentially go through the proposal process? It isn't in taginfo I'd be
happy to help any way I can.
Best,
Nick
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 12
Sorry for being late to the party!
My understanding is that there isn't a documented tagging strategy for a
marked cycle lane crossing that's mapped as on a street way.
cycleway=crossing covers this scenario if the cycleway has been separately
mapped, so I wonder if a proposal for a tag like cycl
o through
width-constrained regions that would prevent some (but not all) wheelchairs
- so they should have their own width=* tags. These paths could be obtained
by mapping areas, but would require fairly intense CS skills to extract.
The above example would work neatly with Allroads' suggest
Looks very nice! I have some different concerns about the curbs, but don't
want to derail. Is there discussion about that curb tagging schema
somewhere?
Overall, I think the concept of overlaying areas, centerlines, and links
between them is a good one.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 3:28 AM Allroads wro
I'm a big fan of this proposal and like others I think it could be useful
in many scenarios. Expansion beyond connecting sidewalks to streets would
be great!
I would propose that under an expansive definition it be thought of this
way: a "footway link" is a path connecting pedestrian-accessible wa
the carriageway of the road. Other mappers seem to use this
scheme too (already 743 uses and only every 7th is from me).
Neat! I really like that proposal and would be interested in chatting about
other potential use cases.
Thanks again,
Nick
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:25 AM
Nick
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:02 PM Markus wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> Please excuse my late reply. :(
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 00:53, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >
> > ## Similarities to shoulders and an opportunity to figure out how to tag
> them.
> >
> > Woul
At the risk of going down a rabbit hole, I'm going to suggest some ways to
think about this that will hopefully spark some discussion related how this
tag could be used with pedestrian navigation.
## Similarities to shoulders and an opportunity to figure out how to tag
them.
Would it be fair to s
> IMO wheelchair=yes means accessible for most basic wheelchairs.
Yes, but it's something that is frequently difficult to estimate. In
interviews with wheelchair users, many will give strong opinions about what
they personally think is accessible and their responses vary more than most
people expe
I would suggest developing a new tag that means, "this authority has
designated this path as accessible by wheelchair users", as that's the
information you actually possess and can communicate. A description of
on-the-ground infrastructure would also be appropriate, though I suspect
there might not
tin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 24. May 2019, at 23:35, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> > crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell
> pedestrians when to stop. There are very likely road markings, but even if
> not, the absence of
I think I'll start using access=no as well, that's a good idea.
On Sat, May 25, 2019, 8:44 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
>
>
> 24 May 2019, 23:41 by nbol...@gmail.com:
>
> > What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line or
> node to represent the footway that isn't there?
>
> Legal status/right of way as far as
pedestrians and drivers on the road
are concerned.
Ah, I see. This is not as clear-cut as it might seem, worldwide. There are
many laws on the books about marked crossings that are not directly
superceded by the existence of signals. It can get pretty complex:
> Which seems to be precisely the opposite of how most people interpret it.
Which is very bad, because those people are all diametrically opposed to
the wiki definition that, for all its problems, been around for about a
decade. To me, this says that there is likely a lot of bad data out there.
I
> Here we seem to be in fundamental disagreement. A crossing with traffic
signals is a crossing with traffic signals independent of road markings
These proposals are literally to tag these things independently.
> the interaction of pedestrians and traffic is
determined by the status of the light
> What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND with road
markings?
Status quo, per the wiki: tag with crossing=traffic_signals, hiding/erasing
any information about markings that would be communicated in other values.
Under the new proposals: tag with crossing=marked (or crossing:marki
i, May 24, 2019, 10:55 AM Nick Bolten wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I have two proposals out regarding the crossing tag and how it is not
> orthogonal, leading to all kinds of issues in mapping crossings and later
> interpreting that data. As currently written, if both propo
Neat! I've been seeing those FHWA guidelines in various state regulation
PDFs, didn't know they were coming from the feds.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:09 PM Clifford Snow
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:27 PM Nick Bolten wrote:
>
>> Well, now I'
Oof, sorry, I managed to discuss software despite your last message. Please
disregard.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:06 PM Nick Bolten wrote:
> I like the thesis (and it's so organized)! I give it a👌.
>
> I like the idea of using discourse - or at least something similarly
> flex
gt; But I was waiting for a cue like this. Thank you for that, Nick. Let's
> be positive, and talk about ideas.
> > We can't change the people, but we can change the communication medium
> which can have a very big effect.
> >
> > I would like to brainstorm what featur
wrote:
> On 5/24/2019 8:13 PM, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > I do believe that in at least some parts of Texas, zebra crossings
> > have some additional legal/right-of-way implications. In this case,
> > when I say zebra, I mean the diagonal stripes enclosed by parallel
> >
> You can’t cross here
Fully agree. This tag is the least ambiguous. There are some good
discussions to have in the future to of whether to add language to the wiki
to state whether the crossing must be illegal, or if it's also okay to tag
if the crossing is unsafe or unreasonable.
> You can cros
> Do you happen to know what the legal implication is, if any?
Pedestrians have the right of way at both marked and unmarked crossings in
Texas, which is pretty common in other states of the USA. Sticking strictly
to legal implications, marked crossings define a space where cars can't
occupy while
in that thread, so let's keep them there.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:01 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> > Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual
>>> impairment (...)
>>
>>
erent options are offered constructively. You can see
that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >
> > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making th
ut I don't believe I used that language.
4. I fail to see how describing a response as condescending would even be
an insult. I don't recall calling anyone's intelligence into question, but
I've sure been on the receiving end of it. Am I wrong to point this out?
On Fri, May 24, 2
> Nothing I said changes the meaning of any existing tags.
It does, because the tags did not specify your exact meanings. You're
adding them: that's a change.
> You seem to be one of very few people that is incapable of understanding
the existing tags, and you shouldn’t be projecting your seeming
> Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the
"do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a
physical presence (e.g. lowered kerbs).
If we only mapped marked crossings and/or ones implied from curb ramps,
then most sidewalks would be disconnec
> AFAIK once traffic lights are present markings are not changing anything
(and crossing with traffic lights without markings are really rare, I
suspect that almost always result of worn-out
painting or recent surface reconstruction).
Change anything for whom? Markings and their location/style imp
> What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line or
node to represent the footway that isn't there?
Personally, I've tagged crossing=no on ways either when it's illegal
(there's a sign saying no crossing) or when it appears to be very dangerous
and it's already been tagged with
> crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell
pedestrians when to stop. There are very likely road markings, but even if
not, the absence of road markings, in the presence of actual traffic
signals, is irrelevant for how this crossing operates.
I think the other definit
ne here is to basically define that the different crossing=*
> values imply default values for various other tags (the same way as the
> wiki currently already documents what e.g. crossing=zebra or
> crossing=pelican implies).
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Bolten
> *Sent:* Satu
there's a third option?
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:54 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:43, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
>> It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to
>> independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environm
ing to discuss on other threads.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:21 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
>> Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched.
>>
>
> Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. I not
that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive
community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so
easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:26 AM Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the &quo
t, the chances are you'll find one.
Especially with these non specific accusations which few here can recognise.
This seems to justify the idea that disagreement = expect petty fights,
given the context. This is also demonstrating my points about decorum.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:09 AM Dave F w
emonstration of my points about decorum.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched.
>
> But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven&
Hi everyone!
I have two proposals out regarding the crossing tag and how it is not
orthogonal, leading to all kinds of issues in mapping crossings and later
interpreting that data. As currently written, if both proposals were
accepted, crossing=traffic_signals/uncontrolled/unmarked would become tw
> What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back it at
mailing list, update if there is something wrong with it?
Yes, exactly! And sometimes the thing that's "wrong with it" is just that
it's vague, does not adequately address exceptions, or doesn't have enough
examples for people i
are safer at marked
crossings, and (2) it was repeatedly stated that mapping these things isn't
important.
They were asked as questions, and there was no response.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
>> This is
This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I
mentioned...
There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to
speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It
serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a
cation. For example: have wiki editing action
items at the end of most discussions
On Fri, May 24, 2019, 3:58 AM Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Hola Nick,
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:17PM -0700, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it oft
m Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 01:00 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten :
>
>> So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is
>> to gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and
>> sometimes on Github issues).
>>
>
>
> iD
turn into), as that doesn't serve any purpose but division and pettiness.
If you ask privately I'd be happy to send you examples.
On Fri, May 24, 2019, 1:56 AM Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Am 24.05.2019 um 00:59 schrieb Nick Bolten:
>
> > The talk ML might be a better spot f
of my replies have distracted from my point:
what is the goal of this mailing list and how do these threads serve it,
given these behaviors? Surely there is a better way to collaborate.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:39 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/23/19 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
spect
> instead of with a rant ;-)
>
> Tobias
>
> On 23/05/2019 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both
> sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used
> was frankly stupid what
o that unless it's absolutely necessary.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 2:43 PM Michael Reichert
wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> Am 23.05.19 um 21:58 schrieb Nick Bolten:
> > # My experience with this mailing list:
> > - Quick to exasperate.
> > - You will be assumed to be com
That bus stop has essentially the same surface conditions as the picture
for `highway=platform`. Who wants to update the wiki?
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:46 PM Jo wrote:
> Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter,
> not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the
> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides
and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was
frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message).
OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these
mailing lists.
That segment of platform by the bus shelter is both a footway and a
platform. In many scenarios, the "platform" might be distinguished by
nothing but some paint on a curb - clearly it's just a part of the sidewalk
where a bus stops.
We shouldn't ask mappers to decide how platform-ie or footway-ie
Ah, I see! That all makes sense.
On Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:42 AM Markus wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:28, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different
The only coherent rule I can surmise based on how footways are mapped "in
the wild" is that it's an outdoor linear feature and it's primarily
intended for pedestrians. Linear transit platforms people walk to, from,
and on seem to fit the other uses of the tag, hence my questions.
The rendering exa
rians,
> but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
> Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not
> footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably
> should.
>
> Tobias
>
> On 23/05/2019 18:26, Nick Bolten wro
ess
that aren't footways?
On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:35 AM Jmapb wrote:
> On 5/23/2019 12:26 PM, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> > redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
>
I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably
interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
Taking a step back, can anyone
tin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. May 2019, at 17:17, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> > I would suggest to tag the exception, i.e. the absence of crossing
> markings where there is a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing,
> with an additional propert
others think about this
approach? New subtags for markings/signals, old tags still allowed?
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:39 AM Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 08.05.19 01:30, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > Would it be fair to say you're suggesting something along the lines of
> > crossing:marking
That is an interesting case!
Looking at mapillary, it looks like part of it is paved. I'm not sure
whether that makes it a footway or not, but it looks incredibly dangerous
to cross there:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.91808029997222&lng=-1.164232900018&z=17.363583160262273&focus=photo
unset and needing data. Only a thorough
in-person audit / broken use case will detect the error.
> I don't deny that such edits may be a problem, I'm not convinced your
proposal is the best solution.
I'm open to other strategies. What do you propose?
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 5:53 A
e.
I'm not following, could you give an example?
Best,
Nick
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 12:54 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten :
>
>> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new
>>
ssing:signals,
tags for markings would never conflict with tags for signals.
Best,
Nick
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 15:53, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll sta
the ground.
This is topical, as crossing=traffic_signals is often claimed to imply
crossing=marked.
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:08 PM Nick Bolten wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing:signals
>
> Hello fellow tagging enthusiasts!
>
> This proposal
problem: I reply to
just about every single thread, quoting just about everything and
attempting to take it into consideration.
Let's try to make this a productive discussion, not one laden with (for
some reason primarily German-speaking-originating) disdain.
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:20 P
oring it and bulldozing your way
> forward.
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Bolten
> *Sent:* Monday, 20 May 2019 10:48
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and
ategy, I'd also be interested in making a new thread about it in the
hopes of making it one.
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> Unfortuna
Hey Markus,
This is a very good example that I somehow forgot to add to any of my
replies / the wiki. Thank you for reminding me!
There are certainly many crossings that have pedestrian signals but are
tagged with the flavor du jour of crossing=marked because the latter can be
mapped from aerial
> if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist,
right?
Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative
information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no. I'd add
crossing=no to that particular place in addition to your recommendations.
Thi
It's a little disappointing to see these points rehashed given the lengthy
recent discussions, but at the risk of creating a new massive thread I'd
like to clear some things up.
> "The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular
traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic sig
The amount of time someone spent at an incline is important for some
pedestrians, so I'd use an option that splits the way and sets the incline
tag.
sidewalk=slide might be related to a tag I've wanted for a while. I think I
would personally call that a ramp, so maybe a use of a tag like ramp=yes
I agree that it's very confuddled. I'm going to start a new thread soon
after I make some updates to the proposal, primarily for clarity and
covering some of the most common questions that have come up here. I'd like
to steal your examples, if you don't mind, for the wiki.
The response you receive
ap.
After these discussions, my preference is for a unique tag for street
traffic signals at crossings:
crossing:street_signal=yes/no/traffic_lights/warning/*, with wording up for
debate.
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 6:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> >
is wrong: those two
values are not truly orthogonal, they make statements about different
things. A crossing *has* ground markings. A crossing *has* traffic signals.
They are separate properties.
I don't know why this distinction is pedantic. Seems important to me.
On Sat, May 11, 20
.pcinvasion.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/cities-skylines-canal.jpg
I'd like to harness those people by writing some accessible mapping apps
and get good pedestrian tags, but I don't want to add bad crossing tags...
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:02 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 1
ossing,
the central island is crossing:island=yes, the other two are... well, I
don't know, really. That's what I'm asking questions about. Maybe
crossing=traffic_signals.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:31 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 23:59, Nick Bolten wrote:
&
ic then there won’t be a crossing tag.
I think I'm confused. crossing=unmarked and crossing=uncontrolled would
both apply in that situation, right?
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:24 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 11. May 2019, at 00:57, Nick Bolte
only" traffic light.
> Is there any unsyncronized crossing with the same traffic lights inside
> the crossing? Which drunken monkey design these crossings? How many people
> die in ?
>
> > Map a marked crossing where pedestrians lack the right of way.
> Error: Pedestrian
o introduce a
replacement scheme, encourage it for new use and manually replace the old
scheme.
Given that I've received a different definition of the term "uncontrolled"
from every response in this and the other proposal thread, I do not suspect
this is an issue that is occasional nor
to cross. Despite this, the
crossing=traffic_signals tag has been used to describe all of these things,
somehow.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:31 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 19:27, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
>> This all makes sense, but the question is: what does
>> c
way, I
wouldn't be against that, either.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:45 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 23:26, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, but a traffic light for whom? I've seen mappers who assume it means
>> "walk"/"do not walk&quo
> If there is not any control of the crossing...yes otherwise should be
crossing=traffic_signals or supervised=yes as you can read in the wiki.
But the meaning of "control" varies by region and municipality, and does
not imply the presence or absence of ground markings. A controlled crossing
can h
t of this proposal: we should be using a specific tag for markings.
> Well, we have it and it is called crossing_ref.
>
> > I'm attempting to build community consensus by writing a proposal and
> then explaining it on this mailing list.
> I was talking about crossing=zeb
s the latter.
I tend to avoid mapping it at all because I don't want to add ambiguous
data to the map.
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. May 2019, at 22:57, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >
> > One of t
> Same around here. Most of them have tactile paving too.
Please join our discussion of crossing=marked!
Without wanting to invite discussion in this thread, this is not what
"uncontrolled" means in OpenStreetMap, and it's one of the reasons we
should change it.
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 4:52 AM P
> > Le 08.05.19 à 01:30, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> > > Unmarked crossings are abstract "fictions"
> >
> > beware of caricature :
> > - unmarked pedestrian crossings with lowered kerb for wheelchairs
> > - unmarked pedestrian crossing that connects a
> Just because mapping something requires real survey rather than mapping
from aerial imagery is not making it fictional or unofficial.
You are correct. To clarify, my use of quotation marks is meant to
communicate that I'm not literally saying they are a fiction - just similar
to one. There is no
> and we already have it : crossing_ref
I was only referencing these facts to note a synergy with another proposal.
It won't be productive to hash out the entirety of problems with
crossing=uncontrolled and the proposal to use crossing=marked in this
thread, so I'll ask that we have in-depth discu
personal invective
that are issued at the drop of a hat, with zero invitation, and it does
nothing except divide.
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:59 AM marc marc wrote:
> Le 07.05.19 à 23:08, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> > What do crossing=uncontrolled/unmarked/traffic_signals say about these
This subthread is doing a good job of showing why "uncontrolled" is opaque
to users and mappers, as it is primarily an issue of local legal questions
and not physical, on-the-ground features, despite the fact that
"uncontrolled" in OSM is meant to also describe those (like markings).
Because it's a
enerate these
> problems.
> Are you sure we need a new tagging scheme for crossings? Are you sure
> there is not other existing way to map whatever you want with the present
> tagging scheme?
>
> I don't think so
> Health and maps (Salut i mapes)
> yopaseopor
>
>
>
aware. Please read my proposal, where I explicitly discuss this.
> a bad preset is not a good usage
Please explain why it's a bad preset.
Best,
Nick
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:51 AM marc marc wrote:
> Le 07.05.19 à 22:57, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> > - crossing=* values
curious to find some survey data regarding the importance of
pedestrian features that included crosswalks and signals. I could've sworn
I knew of one, but am having trouble finding it.
Best,
Nick
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 3:08 PM Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 07.05.19 23:08, Nick Bo
> 1) You cannot deprecate a tagging that is used 750k times
(crossing=uncontrolled) or 570k times (crossing=traffic_signals)
This proposal does not deprecate crossing=uncontrolled.
For the latter: why not? The tag is, in technical terms, garbage, and other
tags in relatively high use have been de
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing:signals
Hello fellow tagging enthusiasts!
This proposal suggests the deprecation of crossing=traffic_signals and
replacing it with crossing:signals=yes, i.e. placing pedestrian
signalization on a dedicated tag that is separate from cr
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dmarked
Hello, fellow tagging enthusiasts! At long last, and after many discussions
on a variety of fora, I am putting this proposal forward in the hopes of
getting feedback, making any necessary revisions, and then moving to a vote.
Hi all!
I think a value of "access_aisle" is entirely appropriate and that it makes
sense to be a footway, such as highway=footway + footway=access_aisle,
though if there's another new subtype that would be a catch-all for similar
features that would also make sense (e.g. footway=service). Access
I like the idea of addressing the area-ness of steps! Thanks for taking the
initiative on this. I have a couple questions and ideas that are hopefully
helpful.
# curb (kerb) lines
What would you think of tagging each step way as a kerb line? e.g., each
step way could be barrier=kerb, kerb=raised,
ta for pedestrian modeling + parking if I felt confident in the tagging
schema.
Best,
Nick
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:32 PM Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 05.03.19 01:01, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > What would you think
> > of a new 'associatedStreet'-style relation that w
of information that tends to go
unmapped.
Best,
Nick
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:05 PM Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 03.03.19 20:12, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > I wanted to get a discussion started to see what people think of
> > mapping curbs as ways.
>
> Can we please first defi
his is to say, what would you think of a way that only had
kerb=lowered? Should there be a barrier=kerb tag there? Or *=kerb?
Best,
Nick
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 8:44 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 4. Mar 2019, at 17:28, Nick Bolten wrote:
> &
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=kerb#keys
>
> Then...you know you will need more tags...cuz it is not enough ;)
> PD: don't map for the render (instead it would be OSM official's one). All
> real info is welcomed
>
> Salut i mapes
> yopaseopor
>
> On Sun,
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
