On 26/10/18 16:00, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 26.10.2018 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >>> Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked >>> crossing is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there >>> is no need for a tag here, as there is nothing special. >> >> An unmarked crossing may have no road markings or signs, but if there is >> tactile paving and/or a raised/lowered/flush kerb on the footway >> (sidewalk), how else would one tag it? > > These are clearly markings for me, the tactile pavings are typically > white and even visible in aerial imagery. Thus "unmarked crossing" is > wrong. The tag is tactile_paving=*, used 300k.
In the UK they are pale red on marked crossings (zebra, pelican, toucan, etc.) and pale yellow at unmarked/uncontrolled crossings. They are not traffic signs (in the legal sense), they are consequently not designed to be clearly visible to road users and are only mentioned briefly in the part of the Highway Code directed at pedestrians (rule 10). I would say that for any practical purposes, these are unmarked from the perspective of a road user travelling along the way, but not from the perspective of a pedestrian crossing the way. > The question is then, should they be mapped on the road or where they > are, at the kerb? > > For the lowered kerbs, they should be mapped as lowered kerbs, there is > a tag for them, kerb=lowered, used 100k. If they are mapped as kerb=* + tactile_paving=yes at the kerb line, then there may be a crossing node on the highway as highway=crossing + crossing=*. At the moment, crossing=unmarked seems to be the least inappropriate common value here. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
