On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 17:43, <lukas-...@web.de> wrote: > The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging > "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on the > same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full crossing mapped. It > breaks the highway=crossing - tagging scheme we use for all other types of > crossing (except crossing=no). Some mappers use "crossing=traffic_signals" > together with "highway=traffic_signals" on the same node als a shortcut for > "lane traffic signal" and "foot traffic signal" because it is rendered as > two traffic signals in JOSM. Or for mapping traffic signals for crossing > cyclists. But I think in every case it is better to use two different > (nearby) nodes for that. >
Am I misunderstanding you? You propose using two nearby nodes for https://goo.gl/maps/3Sg5ndQ2ZCMBN9uy9 You can just see the yellow pedestrian-control box at the left. It controls the crossing (marked with studs) going from left to right across the picture. The same lights that tell motorists to stop for pedestrians also control traffic flow at the T junction ahead. The same set of lights is both a highway traffic signal and a crossing traffic signal. This sort of thing is not uncommon in the UK, with the same set of lights being used for both purposes. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
