On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:10 PM <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: > And none of that matters for the broad classification that the crossing=* key > does, which is: > > You can’t cross here > > You can cross here, but there is no special legal status to it > > You can cross here, and it is a designated crossing place with some kind of > special legal status (that in most jurisdictions prioritizes pedestrians over > vehicles, specifics depend on local jurisdiction) > > You can cross here, and there is a traffic signal that tells you exactly when > you can and can’t cross that you have to follow
If that's the shared understanding, then the Wiki documentation is horribly misleading, since it's all about pavement markings, which definitely do not mean the same thing here. To be specific: > You can’t cross here Some motorways (NOT all, believe it or not.). Some bridges and tunnels. The middle of the block in some cities with anti-jaywalking laws, or less than 150 m (500 ft) from a 'crosswalk' (see below) in some counties. Some roads that are signed, 'pedestrians prohibited' (or a red slashed-circle over a walking stick figure). (Also, I suppose, roads with a high fence, deep stream, railroad or similar obstacle down the median. Or this road: https://www.upperdelawarecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Hawks_Nest-.jpg. But that one isn't 'you MAY not cross here', it's 'you CANnot cross here!' ) > You can cross here, but there is no special legal status to it Except as shown above, pretty much anywhere. I'd tag very, very few of these places with anything at all - it's just random places along the street. Maybe if a walking path happens to cross there and there's no marking, I'll tag it as a crossing. Lowered kerbs/curbs might be another indication, but in my township most of the streets don't even have pavements/sidewalks. > You can cross here, and it is a designated crossing place with some kind of > special legal status (that in most jurisdictions prioritizes pedestrians over > vehicles, specifics depend on local jurisdiction) Any 'crosswalk', marked *or unmarked*. There's an unmnarked crosswalk wherever a road enters an intersection. It doesn't need any sort of marking to enjoy the legal status. (Exception of course is that pedestrians have to obey traffic lights like everyone else.) A marked crosswalk may be marked with signage, pavement markings, or light signals (ordinarily flashing red - the equivalent of a STOP sign, or flashing amber - the equivalent of YIELD/GIVE WAY/red-and-white triangle). All of those have the same effect of designating a 'crosswalk' where motor vehicles must yield to pedestrians. > You can cross here, and there is a traffic signal that tells you exactly when > you can and can’t cross that you have to follow Well understood. That may be just an ordinary traffic light, in which case pedestrians are supposed to cross at the same time as cars in their direction of travel are allowed to roll. Turning traffic is expected to stop for them. So, in my area, virtually all crossings are at least 'uncontrolled' if not 'traffic signals'. Even the ones with absolutely no markings are 'uncontrolled' according to your definition because any intersection has 'crosswalks' associated with it. In summary, around me, the zebra stripes have the effect of creating a 'crosswalk' if they appear where no 'crosswalk' would otherwise exist, and otherwise are not 'strictly decorative', but as others have observed, they're an important aid to people with certain visual impairments, and can be a useful hint 'cross here'. What we're arguing about turns out to be that Thorsten and some others are assuming that the zebra stripes have the same legal meaning here that they do in some other jurisdictions. They do not. Given that fact, there is now a failed consensus about whether to follow the black letter of the Wiki description, or the assumed intent of creating a hierarchy of crossing types, each more secured than the last. As I discussed above, such a hierarchy also exists here, but the indicia are different, and paint in the roadway is only rarely the way that a crossing escalates from 'unmarked' to 'uncontrolled'. Given the failed consensus, I remain confused about which approach to follow. Mapping the paint fails to achieve Thorsten's goal, while mapping crossings according to the rule feels as if it violates 'don't map the local regulations' and perhaps even a little bit of 'verifiability.' (I'd contend that the presence of an intersection is perfectly verifiable, and that locally every intersection has a crosswalk, but I most likely do not have the time or energy to map any of those as 'crossing' in a neighbourhood without pavements/sidewalks!) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
