On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The access should be derived from the crossing ways. This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using the crossing node. However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a first mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as they are nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not interested, at that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the distinction, at least in Italy, between foot-only and combined foot-cycle crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the stop lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the existing tagging on a crossing node when I add a crossing way later.
But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call it a solitary crossings? When in a later stage the crossing way is added this information is not needed and in the first stage it does not add value to routers.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
