IMO, Absence of an implied barrier (kerb) does not make it a special type of crossing. If the footpath is explicitly mapped over the crossroad and there is a barrier for wheelchairs etc, I would expect to tag the barrier itself, or the linking node, or the road section of the footpath for wheelchairs etc to indicate that wheelchair routers cannot route over the barrier, linking node or footpath section.
If no kerb is mapped, no lowered kerb needs to be mapped either. Default presence of kerbs could be deduced from context, but then the context would need to be explicitly mapped. If you only map what is actually there, everyone can draw their own conclusions from the actual situation. Conclusions regarding access, priority and accessibility could differ among countries but there is no need to tag for different countries, customs, expectations and legislations. Just thinking. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 27 okt. 2018 om 02:04 heeft Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> het > volgende geschreven: > > > >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 08:44, Peter Elderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would not tag that as a crossing for pedestrians at all. > > Why not, Peter? > > It is designed for wheelchairs, people with prams etc to easily get from one > footpath across to the next footpath, without having to get over a kerb. > > Thanks > > Graeme > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
