> What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND with road markings?
Status quo, per the wiki: tag with crossing=traffic_signals, hiding/erasing any information about markings that would be communicated in other values. Under the new proposals: tag with crossing=marked (or crossing:markings=yes if it ends up the proposal) and crossing:signals=yes. > Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? Which of the two takes precedence? Neither. They are separate properties of the crossing and can communicate different information. We can describe the number of lanes a street has as well as it's speed limit without having to decide which takes precedent, let's use that same idea for crossings. > However, if you include the zig-zag lines before and after the crossing (...) Maybe the proposal should be updated to be even clearer: a marked crossing is one where the pedestrian crossing space is, specifically, visibly outlined with designated markings. > then you have the dangerous situation that the map leads people to think that a light-controlled crossing (...) is a marked crossing (like a zebra) where pedestrians have priority. With orthogonal crossing tags for markings and pedestrian signals, such a crossing could and should be tagged as having signals. The situation described appears to be a tagging error: someone said the crossing was marked when it wasn't and also neglected to tag the pedestrian signals. Situations like this, where signals get neglected, are actually easier under the current schema due to markings being mappable from aerial imagery while signals usually aren't. > But I suspect this is Nick;s interpretation of what a marked crossing is - there are some marks on the road (I can't make sense of his proposals without that interpretation). My interpretation is the boringest one: a marked crossing is a marked crossing. It's described roughly the same way by transit agencies, Wikipedia, dictionaries, etc.: crossing with visual markings designating the pedestrian space for crossing the street. > That's why it's a bad idea to tag in a way that could lead somebody to conclude that a crossing with signals is a marked crossing. If the crossing is marked, it's marked. Failing to tag the existence of traffic signals is simply a mapping error that can occur under both the current schema and the proposed ones. It is also, as argued on the proposal page, an error that is easier to make and persist under the current schema. If you tagged a crossing with crossing=marked, you could still use MapRoylette/Street complete/other QA tool to fill in crossing:signals values. > Should we say that light-controlled crossings are marked? Nope. traffic_signals and marking are NOT orthogonal, they are mutually exclusive alternatives. Well, in the UK they are - it's possible there's some country where you can have zebra-light-controlled crossings. Pelican crossings tend to have a dotted line outlining the pedestrian space of the crossing... Outside the UK it's common to find pedestrian-signaled crossings with virtually any marking style. Some are shown on the proposal page. On Fri, May 24, 2019, 12:54 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:06, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: > >> >> >> As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition, >> is to leave the existing tag untouched (it seems to work fine for most >> people except you), and tag the special exception where a >> crossing=traffic_signals doesn’t have road markings with >> crossing:markings=no >> > > I think this is the nub of the issue: what is meant by crossing markings. > I think Nick's interpretation > is different from that of some on this list. However, your paragraph > seems to conform to Nick's > interpretation. What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND > with road markings? > > Hint: crossing=unmarked is defined as being a crossing without road > markings or traffic > lights. Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? > Which of the two takes > precedence? Motorists have right of way if their signal is green; > pedestrians have absolute > right of way just by stepping on the crossing irrespective of the lights. > Does not compute. > > However, if you include the zig-zag lines before and after the crossing > that do NOT define > the interaction of pedestrian and motorist but impose conditions on the > motorist alone (cannot > park, cannot wait, cannot load or unload, etc) as being > crossing_markings=yes then you have > the dangerous situation that the map leads people to think that a > light-controlled crossing > (pedestrians and motorists are controlled by the lights) is a marked > crossing (like a zebra) > where pedestrians have priority. See the problem? But I suspect this is > Nick;s interpretation > of what a marked crossing is - there are some marks on the road (I can't > make sense of his > proposals without that interpretation). > > I don't consider the zig-zag markings before or after the crossing to be > relevant to tagging the > crossing. Any more than I consider a white line down the centre of the > road to mean that it's > a marked crossing. Those markings do not define pedestrian/motorist > interaction. > > I agree with Nick (that will surprise him) that these things matter. > Somebody with macular > degeneration may have lost all of their central vision. It may be far > easier to spot a zebra > stripe than to see the lights on crossing signals because of relative > sizes. In fact, you don't > even have to see the stripes, just know that they are there, because > pedestrians have priority. > That's why it's a bad idea to tag in a way that could lead somebody to > conclude that a crossing > with signals is a marked crossing. Instead of hunting for the button and > listening for the signal, > they'll just step into the road knowing (incorrectly) that traffic will > stop for them. > > Could we make the tagging more explicit? For sure. Could we improve the > documentation? Yep. > Should we say that light-controlled crossings are marked? Nope. > traffic_signals and marking > are NOT orthogonal, they are mutually exclusive alternatives. Well, in > the UK they are - it's possible > there's some country where you can have zebra-light-controlled crossings. > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
