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
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:58, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there
> aren't really) is certainly established. As an example,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did
> yesterday. Historically I suspect that there
On 20/05/2019 06:20, Nick Bolten wrote:
> if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping,
then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it.
Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update
the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not neces
> I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it
was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling
you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your
way forward.
Ah, and incidentally, I'd say I have the exact opposite problem:
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
> if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then
draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it.
Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the
wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an established
strategy, I'd also be
discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
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
> On May 20, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative
> information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no
if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a
way with no highway=* tag
(as barrier=fence) and add
the crossing=no tag to the road itself.
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 07:57
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
On Mon, 20 May 201
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
or some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point.
>
> uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that
> control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian
> traffic that this is a designated crossing point
>
> traf
sent from a phone
> On 20. May 2019, at 02:00, John Willis via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Draw the fence.
+1, I would also suggest for fences and walls to tag the height.
Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://list
> On May 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Draw the fence
Draw the fence.
access=no
if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right?
where people have made narrow footpaths (without breaking barriers, such as
paths over a hill between two
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 02:32, wrote:
Pretty well agree with everything you said, Thorsten, but I'd like to
clarify one point thanks.
no - there is no crossing possible/legal here
>
Understand the idea, but how do we actually use it?
The fence here
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0725198,153.4
sent from a phone
> On 19. May 2019, at 18:30,
> wrote:
>
> "The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic
> signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion."
>
> This statement is simply completely factually wrong.
>
> a) traffic_signa
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 18:32, wrote:
>
> Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal
> controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding
> cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they
> haven't been painted yet a
age-
> From: Markus
> Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 00:37
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>
> Subject: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related
> questions
>
> Hi Nick, hi everyone,
>
> I welcome these proposals (crossing=
Hi Nick, hi everyone,
I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and
footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing tagging.
Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far!
I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about
pedestrian crossing tagging
19 matches
Mail list logo
