On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:54 AM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong <jacknst...@sprynet.com> > wrote: >> >> I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided >> this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. >> I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? > > > I don't know if it is "correct" or not, but the footway=crossing tagging is > part of the Sidewalk as separate way proposal > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Crossings. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
The technology that current routers use would have a fair amount of trouble simply deducing from the crossing cycleway that a motorist would need to avoid a crossing. Still, on a detailed map, it may well be desirable to map the dimensions of the crossing and add tags for pavement markings, kerbs (I hope not, but you never know in some places!), tactile pavement, and so on. As someone in the Slack discussion pointed out, you do have two "things" - the linear cycleway, which changes characteristics when it's on the highway surface, and the point that represents the interaction between highway and cycleway - the crossing as seen by a motorist (or a motor router). As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most notably, its full geometry!) can belong only to a way. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
