Hi, crossing has been a very poor tag because it seems to be the kitchen sink for all the questions pertaining to crossings... Many of the attributes that get values in "crossing" are potentially overlapping and not mutually exclusive, causing a lot of confusion and poorly tagged crossings. Nevertheless, specifying crossings is very important because it's a highly contested street region.
The crossing tag has held many values that may overlap, and we should once and for all split out all these different tags so we can be mapping what we mean and mean what we map. Questions we should be answering when mapping a crossing: 1) How is this shared space controlled? A crossing is a high risk environment where traversal is shared between cars and pedestrians (they are of unequal footing). So the type of 'control' and 'right of way' in that space is important to specify. 'uncontrolled' is a very bad tag in this direction because it has an actual legal, non-intuitive meaning and many mappers mistakenly think a crossing that has no traffic signal is uncontrolled- so that's a really bad tag. crossing_control= ? 2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a number of different ground markers, it may also be physically demarcated from other street environments by raised footway, tactile paving or reflectors. crossing_ref=? (for visual demarcation) additional tag for physical demarcation? (I'm in disagreement with those saying it's superfluous or hard to tag this way) 3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal and how can they sense whose right of way is currently allowed? Is there a call button? Does it chirp, speak out, vibrate? 4) who is sharing the way (also a bicycle crossing, animal crossing, etc)? 5) How is the space connected to the rest of the transportation layer? to the pedestrian layer? Crossings should really only extend from curb to curb, so that the kerb could be properly tagged for its physical characteristics. The habit of extending crossings all the way into and overlapping with sidewalk spaces is a pretty bad idea considering those are protected pedestrian spaces and have very semantic meaning to pedestrians than the high risk crossing environment. I think crossing=marked/unmarked was a really good step in the direction of getting resolution and refinement on at least one of these questions above. We should now move together to refine the definitions and values for these other questions... Best, Anat Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:41 PM Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote: > > >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals; =marked (by >> itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where there is provision to cross >> the road but no signage or roadway markings on any sort. > I do crossings as crossing=marked/unmarked. I believe software should be able > to identify if the crossing has a stop sign or traffic signal. Pedestrian > walk/don't walk are low on my radar right now. > > I stopped using zebra since they seemed more appropriate for a crossing in > England than where I live in the US. Crossing=marked/unmarked the only thing > I see where I map them. > > BTW - I believe in the US hitting a pedestrian in a marked crossing is > illegal most everywhere. In some cities, drivers seem to believe they have > the right of way over pedestrians, even if they are in a marked crossing. > > In another country I've spent some time in, cars definitely have the right of > way over pedestrians. > -- > @osm_washington > www.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
