Oh! I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either. Not sure whether you caught the end of that issue #4788, but anyway I've decided I'm tired of hearing people complain about `crossing=zebra` so going forward iD will support these 2 presets:
- `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk" - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing” `crossing=zebra` is still supported as a legacy, unsearchable preset, so things will still look the same. (these changes will go live with the next version of iD, whenever that will be released) thanks! Bryan > On Oct 25, 2018, at 5:39 PM, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a big issue with crossing=zebra. > it prevent to fill in the other value for crossing like > crossing=traffic_signals crossing=uncontrolled > the wiki [1] said that crossing=zebra is a shortchut for > crossing=uncontrolled + crossing_ref=zebra in the UK > but a lot of zebra also in UK and outside UK have traffic_signals > and must be tagged with crossing=traffic_signals > so at the end, crossing=zebra has no meaning... maybe the previous > contributor mean crossing=uncontrolled + crossing_ref=zebra > but maybe he mean only crossing_ref=zebra > I fix a few week a lot of crossing=zebra crossing_1=traffic_signals > or crossing=zebra;traffic_signals that show it's an issue. > > a issue was closed in iD [2] some time ago because "the dev dislike > crossing_ref" (it is in fact a very ugly name for the tag) > right now josm [3] is changing preset to drop cossing_ref=zebra > in favor of crossing=zebra > > I am part of a group of a group of mappers working on accessibility > are planning to open a talk to fix it but the news of the commit flow > preceded us > > so my request is : how to avoid again a multi-meaning tag ? > > may/must we separate the type of crossing from the ground marking ? > in short : move away crossing=zebra in another tag ? if yes > is crossing_Re so ugly than in the same time another tag need > to be used for the ground marking ? > > let's avoid the argument of "there are too many cases to fix", > it doesn't scare me to propose a mass edition once a coherent scheme > has been found. but having half tools that fill a value with another > meaning than other or historical meaning is a big issue for the use > of the data. > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing > [2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4788 > [3] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/16793 > > Regards, > Marc > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
