Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

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

Re: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Tagging mailing list



Jun 10, 2020, 23:17 by [hidden email]:


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...


Reverted.


_______________________________________________
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 1:55 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

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.

Reading the wiki page on one feature per OSM element, it starts off with Ideally, every OSM element or object should be tagged with only one main feature tag, to represent a single on-the-ground feature. I read this as there are exceptions. Unfortunately when this was written, sidewalks as separate ways weren't even thought of. However at the time of the writing of the wiki, level_crossings were. Looking at the discussion history, this issue never came up. Please note that I didn't go back to look at the mailing list conversation. Clearly level crossings tag would appear to violate the policy. I'm happy to read that ideally there should be one main feature tag to describe a feature but there are exceptions. I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a couple of exceptions to the rule. 

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?

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jun 2020, at 23:28, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a couple of exceptions to the rule.


the rule is mostly pointless, because it depends what you define as a feature. In the crossing example there is no infraction of the rule:
there is one feature which is a pedestrian crossing (footway of type crossing) and there is a crossing node where a crossing footway crosses the highway way (different feature).

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?

Clifford Snow
Jack - can you live with Martin's point?  

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jun 2020, at 23:28, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a couple of exceptions to the rule.


the rule is mostly pointless, because it depends what you define as a feature. In the crossing example there is no infraction of the rule:
there is one feature which is a pedestrian crossing (footway of type crossing) and there is a crossing node where a crossing footway crosses the highway way (different feature).

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


--
@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?

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow



On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 06:30, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:


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.

(Not having a go at you, Clifford, just using your comment as an example! :-))

"Recently" (2019?), iD has also started pointing out / suggesting / demanding that all crossings (be they road - footway, driveway - footway, footway - footway / cycleway, road - road etc) eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.08457/153.44892 (if the "error" doesn't show, please click on either side of Second Avenue), also be marked as a crossing.

When you go ahead & "fix" it, it inserts a highway=crossing at that point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/-28.07834/153.44686.

Good luck with telling them they're "wrong"!

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
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 19:29 de 10/06/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu:



On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 06:30, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:


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.

(Not having a go at you, Clifford, just using your comment as an example! :-))

"Recently" (2019?), iD has also started pointing out / suggesting / demanding that all crossings (be they road - footway, driveway - footway, footway - footway / cycleway, road - road etc) eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.08457/153.44892 (if the "error" doesn't show, please click on either side of Second Avenue), also be marked as a crossing.

When you go ahead & "fix" it, it inserts a highway=crossing at that point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/-28.07834/153.44686.

Good luck with telling them they're "wrong"!

Thanks

Graeme


That's an obvious error.
The ways must cross somewhere (that's what the warning states) , but it doesn't tell you to add a crossing.
_______________________________________________
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?

Jarek Piórkowski
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 14:27, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
> To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.
>
> ...
> 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

Mateusz has already pointed this out, but just to reinforce, this
scheme would break pedestrian routing and require a wholesale rewrite
of all routers to be able to jump between nearby ways.

An analogy would be having a break in a minor road where it intersects
the roadway of a major road.

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
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



Jun 11, 2020, 01:10 by [hidden email]:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 14:27, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.

...
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

Mateusz has already pointed this out, but just to reinforce, this
scheme would break pedestrian routing and require a wholesale rewrite
of all routers to be able to jump between nearby ways.
And that rewrite would introduce unfixable routing bugs in cases where nearby
footways are not allowing pedestrain movement.

Also, that rewrite would be quite hard to implement without cratering performance.

_______________________________________________
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
Jack - can you live with Martin's point?  

Actually, I'm very flexible with just about anything. My only goal in bringing this up was to clean up the wiki page so that mappers have clear guidance. The way the wiki was written seemed confusing. After I brought up the subject I learned about the sidewalk proposal from 2011 and it seemed the proposal and the wiki were clearly at odds. I don't feel strongly either way about it. Again, I'd just like to see the proposal, the wiki and the OSM community agree on something that mappers can use as a common guideline. I'm easy.

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?

Marc M.
In reply to this post by Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
Hello,

Le 10.06.20 à 04:03, Jack Armstrong a écrit :
> Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways

I don't see 2 crossing.
I only see 1 crossing https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7598863281
between a footway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813492687
and a tertiary road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558176641

Regards,
Marc

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