Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. 


Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”.


Example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726


I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?


OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing



- Jack Armstrong




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Andrew Davidson-3
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?

I don't know if it is "correct" or not, but the footway=crossing tagging is part of the Sidewalk as separate way proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Crossings.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Kevin Kenny-3
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:54 AM Andrew Davidson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?
>
>
> I don't know if it is "correct" or not, but the footway=crossing tagging is part of the Sidewalk as separate way proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Crossings.
--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

The technology that current routers use would have a fair amount of
trouble simply deducing from the crossing cycleway that a motorist
would need to avoid a crossing. Still, on a detailed map, it may well
be desirable to map the dimensions of the crossing and add tags for
pavement markings, kerbs (I hope not, but you never know in some
places!), tactile pavement, and so on.  As someone in the Slack
discussion pointed out, you do have two "things" - the linear
cycleway, which changes characteristics when it's on the highway
surface, and the point that represents the interaction between highway
and cycleway - the crossing as seen by a motorist (or a motor router).

As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for
instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that
the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most
notably, its full geometry!) can belong only to a way.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

dieterdreist


Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 14:09 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for
instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that
the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most
notably, its full geometry!) can belong only to a way.


+1, I am doing it usually like this:
highway=footway (or cycleway) and footway=crossing on the way (from kerb to kerb).
highway=crossing and crossing=traffic_signals / zebra / uncontrolled etc. on each intersection node of the street(s) with the crossing way.

i.e. there is no "highway=crossing" or "crossing=*" on the way, instead the crossing information there is conveyed as a kind of footway.

Cheers
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”.

Looks like two double carriageway roads.  Effectively two crosswalks for each road thanks to the roadway going each way.  So, 8 crossings is correct in this case.  Granted, bad design from a safety perspective, but that's not on us, that's on whatever engineer thought that was a good idea.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
Thank you, Andrew,

According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved in 2011, 

When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should be tagged as follows:
highway=footway
footway=crossing

However, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this; 

To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node…
footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.

Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the approved proposal to the wiki?

I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection to the wiki being changed to reflect this?

Cheers




-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Armstrong
Sent: Jun 9, 2020 8:03 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. 


Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”.


Example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726


I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?


OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing



- Jack Armstrong




www.theaveragenomad.com



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

António Madeira
I agree that the wiki should be consistent on the use of these two ways of mapping a highway crossing.

Personally, I always use highway=crossing on nodes and only footway=crossing when I can connect the point to a pedestrian feature for routing purposes.


Às 12:44 de 10/06/2020, Jack Armstrong escreveu:
Thank you, Andrew,

According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved in 2011, 

When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should be tagged as follows:
highway=footway
footway=crossing

However, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this; 

To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node…
footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.

Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the approved proposal to the wiki?

I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection to the wiki being changed to reflect this?

Cheers




-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Armstrong
Sent: Jun 9, 2020 8:03 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. 


Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”.


Example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726


I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?


OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing



- Jack Armstrong







_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Clifford Snow
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com


On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:44 AM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you, Andrew,

According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved in 2011, 

When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should be tagged as follows:
highway=footway
footway=crossing

However, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this; 

To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node…
footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.

Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the approved proposal to the wiki?

I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection to the wiki being changed to reflect this?

Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.  With thousands of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. 

Best,
Clifford
--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

voschix
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com


On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 17:45, Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
 To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node…
footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.
The sentence in bold has only recently been added. I have already written to the author asking for the basis of this change.
I am waiting for an answer. If none will come that needs reverting.

Volker

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com

> From: Clifford Snow

> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.  With thousands of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. 




Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to Map” section would have added clarity; 


To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal):


When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should be tagged as follows:

highway=footway

footway=crossing


To be deleted from the wiki:


footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.


On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Clifford Snow


On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Clifford Snow

> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.  With thousands of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. 




Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to Map” section would have added clarity; 


To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal):


When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should be tagged as follows:

highway=footway

footway=crossing


To be deleted from the wiki:


footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.


On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community.

To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55

Best,
Clifford


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Taskar Center
FWIW, as the originating party for the “sidewalk as separate way” proposal, we have actually been mapping and tagging both the pedestrian crossing line geometry as well as the intersecting node geometry with the crossing demarcation. 

Moreover, we highly recommend using the tag
Crossing= exclusively for marked/unmarked tagging. 

The crossing=controlled tag should really be deprecated due to ambiguity in different locales and the fact that controlled isn’t mutually exclusive of the marked/unmarked designation. 

I believe both of the pages pointed to by Jack should be amended to clarify these points. 

Best regards,

Anat 
@OpenSidewalks


Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On Jun 10, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Clifford Snow

> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.  With thousands of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. 




Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to Map” section would have added clarity; 


To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal):


When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should be tagged as follows:

highway=footway

footway=crossing


To be deleted from the wiki:


footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.


On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community.

To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55

Best,
Clifford


--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
Jun 10, 2020, 20:26 by [hidden email]:
To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55
In case of separately mapped sidewalks (2) is completely and horribly wrong,
as footway geometry is broken.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com



Jun 10, 2020, 19:59 by [hidden email]:

To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal):


When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should be tagged as follows:

highway=footway

footway=crossing


To be deleted from the wiki:


footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.


On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community.

a bit in attempt to clarify that this additional way applies only in cases of separately mapped sidewalks.

"This is not the preferred way of tagging." was left and I support its removal.

I oppose "This way should be tagged as follows: highway=footway", it should be also mentioned
that "highway=path + footway=sidewalk" may be correct (in case of bicycle=designated foot=designated)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
From: Clifford Snow 
To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55


Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference, 

#1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule.
#2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon)
#3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot? This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node.

This is an example of how I prefer to map pedestrian crossings (this is common throughout downtown Denver):

Here are two methods I mapped as a demonstration of mapping that I feel is correct, as well. Mapped here are two different methods that seem reasonable, tagging either the connecting node or tagging the way; but not tagging both the node and the way. Tagging both the node and the way would seem to violate the  "one feature, one OSM element" rule.

Cheers
Jack Armstrong
(chachafish)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Clifford Snow


On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
From: Clifford Snow 
To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55


Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference, 

#1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule.
#2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon)
#3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot? This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node.

Sorry - I should have been clearer on #3. The red dot is a validation warning that the two ways intersect, but it isn't marked as a crossing.

If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element." 

Best,
Clifford

--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

António Madeira


Às 17:16 de 10/06/2020, Jack Armstrong escreveu:
From: Clifford Snow 
To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55


Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference, 

#1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule.
#2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon)
#3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot? This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node.

This is an example of how I prefer to map pedestrian crossings (this is common throughout downtown Denver):

Here are two methods I mapped as a demonstration of mapping that I feel is correct, as well. Mapped here are two different methods that seem reasonable, tagging either the connecting node or tagging the way; but not tagging both the node and the way. Tagging both the node and the way would seem to violate the  "one feature, one OSM element" rule.

Cheers
Jack Armstrong
(chachafish)


Using footway=sidewalk on a highway crossing is not a legit way of mapping this. You can not substitute something that seems wrong for a certainly wrong tag.
I understand your issue, as I always had the same problem about footway=crossing, and that's why I only use it when creating routable ways for pedestrians, but unless you can convince routing software to recognize a highway=crossing point as a crossover to pedestrians (with out a line) I don't see how this can be undone.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com

From: Clifford Snow 

If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element." 

Well, again, my personal preferences are not germane to this thread. I'm not shy about expressing my opinions, it's just I'm not trying to politic for a certain style of mapping in this case. 

In this matter, whichever method of mapping that is decided upon by the OSM community is fine with me. I'm simply concerned with the wiki page meshing with the approved sidewalk proposal. I'm not in favor of the approved proposal from 2011 nor am I against it. I'm simply keen to have the wiki and the proposal mesh correctly. My personal preferences are not relevant to a decision made back in 2011. I am not proposing any changes other than having the wiki and the 2011 proposal mesh accurately.

Cheers :)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow


sent from a phone

On 10. Jun 2020, at 20:28, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55


1 is the scheme when it is a dual carriageway or there is at least one explicit sidewalk (or cycleway in case of bike crossing) mapped


2 if you do not have to connect other things


3 is incomplete and you may expect that routing software for cars might not become aware of the crossing, and the type of crossing (markings, lights, etc)


Of course you could find out with solution 3 that there is a crossing node, but as the docs always said that there’s the tags on the node, they are set up to not do it (i.e. they can build their graph without footways). In preprocessing these tags could be automatically set on the node (provided the kind of crossing would be given on the crossing way, otherwise that there is a crossing).

Cheers Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow


sent from a phone

On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:19, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change.


this sentence was only introduced recently, it is not backed by history, current usage or the people in this thread here. Just remove it...



Cheers Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12