Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Adam Snape
Hi

I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980

It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing:
1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
2. Entire crossing mapped as a node (alternative): highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals
3. Crossing mapped separately and tagged highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
Traffic lights tagged: highway=traffic_signals + crossing=no + traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward

According to the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals), the latter is strongly recommended:

Historically I've tended to use the specific UK shortcuts eg. highway=crossing crossing=pelican but I'm happy to change if the consensus is that any of the above methods are to be preferred. I've never been happy that crossings aren't rendered with a traffic light symbol but have no wish to tag for the renderer. My worry with Option 3 is that some routing programs might view it as two (or even three) separate sets of traffic lights.

Any advice gratefully received,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Brian Prangle-2
Hi Adam

I think option 1 is the consensus way to map these, certainly so in the West Midlands. Option 3 is more verbose but not incorrect. Option 2 omits the salient feature which is highway=crossing and so is not recommended

Regards

Brian

On 9 March 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi

I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980

It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing:
1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
2. Entire crossing mapped as a node (alternative): highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals
3. Crossing mapped separately and tagged highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
Traffic lights tagged: highway=traffic_signals + crossing=no + traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward

According to the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals), the latter is strongly recommended:

Historically I've tended to use the specific UK shortcuts eg. highway=crossing crossing=pelican but I'm happy to change if the consensus is that any of the above methods are to be preferred. I've never been happy that crossings aren't rendered with a traffic light symbol but have no wish to tag for the renderer. My worry with Option 3 is that some routing programs might view it as two (or even three) separate sets of traffic lights.

Any advice gratefully received,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Adam Snape
Thanks Brian,

That's what I'd observed to be the norm around here too. But, is the more verbose option to be encouraged because it explicitly notes the presence of traffic lights for road traffic (crossing=traffic_signals just means signals for pedestrians), or is it just unnecessary complexity (the presence of vehicle traffic signals could implied from the presence of pedestrian ones) ?

Regards,

Adam

On 10 March 2017 at 12:55, Brian Prangle <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Adam

I think option 1 is the consensus way to map these, certainly so in the West Midlands. Option 3 is more verbose but not incorrect. Option 2 omits the salient feature which is highway=crossing and so is not recommended

Regards

Brian

On 9 March 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi

I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980

It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing:
1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
2. Entire crossing mapped as a node (alternative): highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals
3. Crossing mapped separately and tagged highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
Traffic lights tagged: highway=traffic_signals + crossing=no + traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward

According to the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals), the latter is strongly recommended:

Historically I've tended to use the specific UK shortcuts eg. highway=crossing crossing=pelican but I'm happy to change if the consensus is that any of the above methods are to be preferred. I've never been happy that crossings aren't rendered with a traffic light symbol but have no wish to tag for the renderer. My worry with Option 3 is that some routing programs might view it as two (or even three) separate sets of traffic lights.

Any advice gratefully received,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Brian Prangle-2
Personally I think it's overkill

On 10 March 2017 at 13:12, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Brian,

That's what I'd observed to be the norm around here too. But, is the more verbose option to be encouraged because it explicitly notes the presence of traffic lights for road traffic (crossing=traffic_signals just means signals for pedestrians), or is it just unnecessary complexity (the presence of vehicle traffic signals could implied from the presence of pedestrian ones) ?

Regards,

Adam

On 10 March 2017 at 12:55, Brian Prangle <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Adam

I think option 1 is the consensus way to map these, certainly so in the West Midlands. Option 3 is more verbose but not incorrect. Option 2 omits the salient feature which is highway=crossing and so is not recommended

Regards

Brian

On 9 March 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi

I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980

It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing:
1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
2. Entire crossing mapped as a node (alternative): highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals
3. Crossing mapped separately and tagged highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
Traffic lights tagged: highway=traffic_signals + crossing=no + traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward

According to the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals), the latter is strongly recommended:

Historically I've tended to use the specific UK shortcuts eg. highway=crossing crossing=pelican but I'm happy to change if the consensus is that any of the above methods are to be preferred. I've never been happy that crossings aren't rendered with a traffic light symbol but have no wish to tag for the renderer. My worry with Option 3 is that some routing programs might view it as two (or even three) separate sets of traffic lights.

Any advice gratefully received,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Edward Catmur
Option 3 appears to be the only way to map an asl or to signify its (rather their) absence. I don't think you can tag a combined (option 1) crossing node with cycleway=asl. 

It's also more consistent if nearby road junctions are mapped in detail for standalone crossings to be mapped similarly. 

On 10 Mar 2017 16:40, "Brian Prangle" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally I think it's overkill

On 10 March 2017 at 13:12, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Brian,

That's what I'd observed to be the norm around here too. But, is the more verbose option to be encouraged because it explicitly notes the presence of traffic lights for road traffic (crossing=traffic_signals just means signals for pedestrians), or is it just unnecessary complexity (the presence of vehicle traffic signals could implied from the presence of pedestrian ones) ?

Regards,

Adam

On 10 March 2017 at 12:55, Brian Prangle <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Adam

I think option 1 is the consensus way to map these, certainly so in the West Midlands. Option 3 is more verbose but not incorrect. Option 2 omits the salient feature which is highway=crossing and so is not recommended

Regards

Brian

On 9 March 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi

I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980

It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing:
1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
2. Entire crossing mapped as a node (alternative): highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals
3. Crossing mapped separately and tagged highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
Traffic lights tagged: highway=traffic_signals + crossing=no + traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward

According to the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals), the latter is strongly recommended:

Historically I've tended to use the specific UK shortcuts eg. highway=crossing crossing=pelican but I'm happy to change if the consensus is that any of the above methods are to be preferred. I've never been happy that crossings aren't rendered with a traffic light symbol but have no wish to tag for the renderer. My worry with Option 3 is that some routing programs might view it as two (or even three) separate sets of traffic lights.

Any advice gratefully received,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Adam Snape
I agree with your latter point about the tagging being consistent with the tagging of junctions. I don't think I've ever seen an advanced stop line at a crossing though. 

Regards,

Adam

On 10 Mar 2017 8:25 p.m., "Edward Catmur" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Option 3 appears to be the only way to map an asl or to signify its (rather their) absence. I don't think you can tag a combined (option 1) crossing node with cycleway=asl. 

It's also more consistent if nearby road junctions are mapped in detail for standalone crossings to be mapped similarly. 

On 10 Mar 2017 16:40, "Brian Prangle" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally I think it's overkill

On 10 March 2017 at 13:12, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Brian,

That's what I'd observed to be the norm around here too. But, is the more verbose option to be encouraged because it explicitly notes the presence of traffic lights for road traffic (crossing=traffic_signals just means signals for pedestrians), or is it just unnecessary complexity (the presence of vehicle traffic signals could implied from the presence of pedestrian ones) ?

Regards,

Adam

On 10 March 2017 at 12:55, Brian Prangle <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Adam

I think option 1 is the consensus way to map these, certainly so in the West Midlands. Option 3 is more verbose but not incorrect. Option 2 omits the salient feature which is highway=crossing and so is not recommended

Regards

Brian

On 9 March 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi

I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980

It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing:
1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
2. Entire crossing mapped as a node (alternative): highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals
3. Crossing mapped separately and tagged highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals
Traffic lights tagged: highway=traffic_signals + crossing=no + traffic_signals:direction=forward/backward

According to the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals), the latter is strongly recommended:

Historically I've tended to use the specific UK shortcuts eg. highway=crossing crossing=pelican but I'm happy to change if the consensus is that any of the above methods are to be preferred. I've never been happy that crossings aren't rendered with a traffic light symbol but have no wish to tag for the renderer. My worry with Option 3 is that some routing programs might view it as two (or even three) separate sets of traffic lights.

Any advice gratefully received,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Loading...