Have you tried writing to them using changeset comment?
Oct 17, 2022, 20:17 by r...@hubris.org.uk: > The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have decided > to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most of which I > have surveyed and mapped, with the following innovations: > > 1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have > tactile paving along their entire length. This may be a result of copying all > the tags from the crossing node to the way, but could be unhelpful for any > data consumers which expect tactile_paving=* to work as documented. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways > > 2) removing crossing=no from highway=traffic_signals nodes where there is > either no crossing or a crossing which is mapped as a separate node. It's not > a necessary tag, but it's been used as documented in the 'How to map' section > of the wiki. I've added a sentence to the wiki for crossing=no referring to > highway=traffic_signals > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#How_to_map_(new) > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=prev&oldid=2421754 > > 3) replacing traffic_signals=traffic_lights with the less-specific > traffic_signals=signal and traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing with the > undocumented traffic_signals=crossing > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals > > I'm happy for my edits to be corrected when I make mistakes or misread the > wiki, which I'm sure happens more often than I imagine. However, it's rather > annoying to lose data to what appears to be an undiscussed and potentially > misguided personal project. > > On 27/09/2022 07:42, Robert Skedgell wrote: > >> Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming the >> crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my assumption has >> been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging. >> >> If a visually impaired user is being told to expect additional islands or >> refuges where none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe. >> >> This wiki appears to agree with this: >> "Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is >> explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the traffic >> island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common with larger >> intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic lane in each >> direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches of >> highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged with >> footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections can >> optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in case you >> are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to explicitly >> mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands." >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island >> >> I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the >> islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. >> Perhaps I should? >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
