Vào lúc 02:08 2022-12-01, Volker Schmidt đã viết:
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 logical analogue to the successful crossing:markings=* proposal would be a proposal for a crossing:signals=* key that introduces options beyond what mappers can already express (in a Babelesque manner) using the various crossing=* tags -- without impinging on the entrenched interests behind crossing=zebra/uncontrolled/marked.
I'm working on such a proposal, in part to close a gap that mappers in my region experience acutely. [1] Unfortunately, I didn't manage to complete it before this more aggressive proposal went to an RfC. I just hope this proposed deprecation doesn't poison the well for crossing:signals=* once it's ready. The original 2019 proposal for crossing:signals=* made the same mistake of touching the sensitive crossing=* key.
Also what is the meaning of crossing=no?
crossing=no is for where the road geometry etc. would suggest a pedestrian crossing but there isn't one. Some jurisdictions have standard signs for this situation. It's probably more common in regions where there are laws against jaywalking. If we're really serious about deprecating crossing=*, then a more systematized tag could be not:highway=crossing, now that the not:* prefix is fairly well-established. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Crossing_signalization
-- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
