On 26.10.2018 13.26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Re: marking= zebra > Problem is that the zebra stripes can have different meaning in > different countries. In Italy it can mean, depending on the context: > "foot-only" or "foot-and-bicycle". In addition we also have additional > non-zebra signing for bicycles. > It would be much better to distinguish between "marked" and "unmarked" > for the horizontal signalling, without specifying the signalling details > and use foot=yes|no and bicycle=yes|no|dismount (?) to indicate the type > of traffic that can cross. > > Re: precedence of vertical signalling over horizontal signalling > I am not sure about this here in Italy and even less so in other countries. > We do have here many crossings that consist only of painted zebra > stripes on the ground without any vertical sign. > > Re: Zebra markings with traffic lights > This standard in Italy. > In Germany the standard for that looks different: two rows of dashed > white stripes (may we should call that Okapi), but the meaning is the same.
Aaaand here's Finland, just to mix things up :) In Finland crossings controlled with traffic lights often (if not always) have also a vertical signal and zebra markings, which are only in effect if the traffic lights are off for some reason. A footway crossing that gives foot traffic precedence is marked with a vertical signal and MAY be marked with a zebra marking. Both are usually used, but not always, and a missing zebra marking doesn't have any effect on the meaning of the controls. There's another kind of marking, which is kind of a ”cut” zebra marking (like this: https://www.finlex.fi/data/sdliite/liikm/5818.gif ). This may be on the side of a zebra marking or by itself, and it designates a bicycle and moped crossing. The bicycle crossing has no effect on precedence of the traffic modes. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
