> ground marking but not traffic signal I listed three discrete categories being covered in the current schema: on-the-ground markings, signals for pedestrians, and signals for cross-traffic. There is some further confusion regarding the word "uncontrolled" having to do with right-of-way, but I'll ask that we keep that to my other proposal whenever reasonable.
So, with that in mind, what does "traffic signal" mean? Is there a signal telling pedestrians when to cross? Is there a signal telling cross-traffic to stop, at which point pedestrians have the right of way? The wiki states that it's only about the pedestrian signal, which is another problem that I neglected to cover: traffic_signals is already used for street traffic via highway=traffic_signals and it applies to automotive traffic. Mappers are often confused about what traffic_signals means in the context of crossing=traffic_signals, which is why this proposal originally suggested crossing=pedestrian_signals. > sorry I didn't understand what you mean. crossing describe the crossing. if you want to describe a traffic sign, check traffic_sign key A crossing with signals can and frequently does have separate signals for cross-traffic (cars) and pedestrians. Which are present, according to this tag? Saying, "the crossing" does not disambiguate this question, as any crossing can have any combination. > I didn't see where you see this "implied" The wiki and other OSM resources, including this very mailing list. > the color of the nearest building is not indicated either, fortunately because it is not the role of this key. if you want a traffic sign info, check traffic_sign key You seem to be implying that crossing=traffic_signals is not describing signals for pedestrians. This is what the wiki says about this tag: "Position this tag where the crossing-traffic (pedestrian, bicycles) have their own traffic lights.". That's it. The mapper is left to try and guess about what "traffic lights" means and whether it implies that pedestrians have their own signals. I've seen countless mappers, veteran mappers, say that crossing=traffic_signals means there is a light telling pedestrians when they can cross. I would suggest that this means the existing data is unreliable. To me, this suggests that we should even have another tag: crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no, that is dedicated solely to automotive traffic on the street having a signal at this crossing. > again... (check crossing_ref) I don't know what this means (nor the response before it). > the current situation is far from perfect, but either you have not understood the current tags, or you are blackening the current situation to promote your proposal to change everything, which seems unrealistic. I'm going to ask that we keep personal accusations of dishonesty to a minimum. These mailing lists are full of unnecessary personal invective that are issued at the drop of a hat, with zero invitation, and it does nothing except divide. On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 1:59 AM marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Le 07.05.19 à 23:08, Nick Bolten a écrit : > > What do crossing=uncontrolled/unmarked/traffic_signals say about these > scenarios? > > > crossing=uncontrolled: > > ground marking but not traffic signal > > > - signalization for pedestrians is undefined > > sorry I didn't understand what you mean. > crossing describe the crossing. > if you want to describe a traffic sign, check traffic_sign key > > > - markings are implied > > I didn't see where you see this "implied" > > > crossing=unmarked: > > - signalization for pedestrians is undefined > > the color of the nearest building is not indicated either, > fortunately because it is not the role of this key. > if you want a traffic sign info, check traffic_sign key > > > - signalization for traffic is undefined > > again... > > > > crossing=traffic_signals > > - markings are undefined > > again... (check crossing_ref) > > > So, you can see the problem: the values are describing completely > > different things and the rest is ambiguous. > > the current situation is far from perfect, but either you have not > understood the current tags, or you are blackening the current situation > to promote your proposal to change everything, which seems unrealistic. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
