This proposal is incorrectly giving the impression that it is in the spirit of the crossing:markings tag. This tag was meant to complement and refine the existing tagging of crossings in some cases, but certainly not to replace, wholesale the "crossing" key The crossing:markings key describes the painting on the road surface, not the legal situation for the traffic participants, and it also leaves out the vertical signals (which BTW here in Italy have precedence over the horizontal signs in case of conflict)
The statement " As such, I propose to approve crossing:signals=* and additionally deprecate crossing=* (except crossing=no)." is not in the spirit of the crossing:markings wiki page is unworkable: there are some several million crossing=* tags and it als cannot replace the existing tagging (example: "crossing:markings=pictogram" does not replace the tagging highway=path plus bicycle=designatet plus foot=designated plus segregated=yes on the crossing way) Also what is the meaning of crossing=no? Please note that I am not saying that the actual tagging practice is good or uniform. Volker (mapping cyclist in NE Italy)
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
