"Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

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

"Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Markus-5
Hi Nick, hi everyone,

I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and
footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing tagging.
Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far!

I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about
pedestrian crossing tagging in general:

  * When the crossing type is tagged on the way (e.g. highway=footway
+ footway=crossing + crossing=marked + crossing:signals=yes), should
the crossing type also be tagged (duplicated) on the crossing node or
are routers able to get that information from the crossing ways?

  * Should the road be split for short refuge islands into two one-way
ways? This would result in unusual maps, especially at crossroads
(example: [2]).

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unambiguous_crossings
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Crossroads_with_traffic_islands.png

Regards

Markus

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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

osm.tagging
"The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion."

This statement is simply completely factually wrong.

a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag

b) there are 2 distinct tags to describe the presence of traffic signals for the road way and foot/cycle way:

highway=traffic_signals for signals controlling traffic on the road
crossing=traffic_signals for signals controlling crossing pedestrians

"To make matters worse, it forces mappers to choose between tagging a crossing's markings, [...], or whether it has signalization."

Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced.

And even if there should really be signal controlled crossings that on purpose do not have any road markings, I would consider that to be basically completely irrelevant. The presence of signals that control traffic and pedestrian movement supersedes the meaning any road markings might have. If a signal controlled crossing has road markings or not does not in any way change its operation.

Deprecating a tag that has been used almost 600000 times and has widespread software support, just to replace it with a different tag that means exactly the same seems somewhat insane to me, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can guarantee to always vote no for this.

"Replacing crossing=island"

I can agree with this one, but it's essentially a non-issue as this has already been done. At most the wiki might need slight editing to make it more clear that the use of crossing=island has been deprecated.

"Replacing crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra with crossing=marked"

crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/

Looking at taginfo, there are already 168281 cases of crossing=marked right now, so the unfortunate reality is that we already have the case of 3 different values meaning the same thing and no matter how much you try to dictate the usage of a particular one by fiddling with the wiki, it's unlikely that there will ever be a day when all 3 aren't in widespread use synonymously.

As such the best that can be done is to slightly adjust the wiki to document the reality that all 3 values are used synonymously.

All this basically leaves the crossing key with the following possible values:

no - there is no crossing possible/legal here

unmarked - there are no road markings or traffic signals here, but this is a place where people are generally (legally) cross the road, e.g. because of lowered kerbs, or because the sidewalk on one side of the road stops here, or some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point.

uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian traffic that this is a designated crossing point

traffic_signals - there are traffic signals here that control traffic flow, it is extremely likely that there are also road markings, but their presence or absence is irrelevant as it would not change how the crossing operates

I think you'll find that any proposal that tries to completely throw over this well-established tagging scheme is doomed to failure.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 00:37
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related
> questions
>
> Hi Nick, hi everyone,
>
> I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and
> footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing
> tagging.
> Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far!
>
> I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about
> pedestrian crossing tagging in general:
>
>   * When the crossing type is tagged on the way (e.g.
> highway=footway
> + footway=crossing + crossing=marked + crossing:signals=yes), should
> the crossing type also be tagged (duplicated) on the crossing node
> or are routers able to get that information from the crossing ways?
>
>   * Should the road be split for short refuge islands into two one-
> way ways? This would result in unusual maps, especially at
> crossroads
> (example: [2]).
>
> [1]:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unambiguous_cr
> ossings
> [2]:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Crossroads_with_traffic_isl
> ands.png
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Markus-5
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 18:32, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced.
>
> [...]
>
> crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/

While it may be true that there aren't any signal controlled
pedestrian crossing without road markings, the problem with
zebra/marked using the same key as traffic_signals is that mappers
(those that don't visit the place, don't have local knowledge and
likely haven't read the documentation) see a marked crossing on the
aerial imagery and tag it crossing=zebra/marked even if there are
traffic lights -- sometimes they even retag a crossing=traffic_signals
to crossing=zebra/marked. I've already corrected dozens of them, but
there are constantly new ones being wrongly added or retagged. While
crossing=unmarked/{uncontrolled|zebra|marked}/traffic_signals
theoretically may work, it doesn't in practice. I think that only
moving traffic lights and road markings to separate keys will solve
this problem.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by osm.tagging


sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2019, at 18:30, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> "The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion."
>
> This statement is simply completely factually wrong.
>
> a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag
>
> b) there are 2 distinct tags to describe the presence of traffic signals for the road way and foot/cycle way:
>
> highway=traffic_signals for signals controlling traffic on the road
> crossing=traffic_signals for signals controlling crossing pedestrians
>
> "To make matters worse, it forces mappers to choose between tagging a crossing's markings, [...], or whether it has signalization."
>
> Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced.
>
> And even if there should really be signal controlled crossings that on purpose do not have any road markings, I would consider that to be basically completely irrelevant. The presence of signals that control traffic and pedestrian movement supersedes the meaning any road markings might have. If a signal controlled crossing has road markings or not does not in any way change its operation.
>
> Deprecating a tag that has been used almost 600000 times and has widespread software support, just to replace it with a different tag that means exactly the same seems somewhat insane to me, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can guarantee to always vote no for this.
>
> "Replacing crossing=island"
>
> I can agree with this one, but it's essentially a non-issue as this has already been done. At most the wiki might need slight editing to make it more clear that the use of crossing=island has been deprecated.
>
> "Replacing crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra with crossing=marked"
>
> crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/
>
> Looking at taginfo, there are already 168281 cases of crossing=marked right now, so the unfortunate reality is that we already have the case of 3 different values meaning the same thing and no matter how much you try to dictate the usage of a particular one by fiddling with the wiki, it's unlikely that there will ever be a day when all 3 aren't in widespread use synonymously.
>
> As such the best that can be done is to slightly adjust the wiki to document the reality that all 3 values are used synonymously.
>
> All this basically leaves the crossing key with the following possible values:
>
> no - there is no crossing possible/legal here
>
> unmarked - there are no road markings or traffic signals here, but this is a place where people are generally (legally) cross the road, e.g. because of lowered kerbs, or because the sidewalk on one side of the road stops here, or some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point.
>
> uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian traffic that this is a designated crossing point
>
> traffic_signals - there are traffic signals here that control traffic flow, it is extremely likely that there are also road markings, but their presence or absence is irrelevant as it would not change how the crossing operates
>
> I think you'll find that any proposal that tries to completely throw over this well-established tagging scheme is doomed to failure


full quote, +1
thank you for taking the time to formulate a thorough reply

just one remark: crossing=zebra clearly means a zebra crossing (implications for traffic may vary according to the jurisdiction), crossing=marked means _any_ marked crossing. Both will imply (from my understanding) that there are no traffic lights (for pedestrians), but the meaning may not be identical.

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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by osm.tagging


On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 02:32, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pretty well agree with everything you said, Thorsten, but I'd like to clarify one point thanks.

no - there is no crossing possible/legal here

Understand the idea, but how do we actually use it?

The fence here https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0725198,153.4441123,3a,75y,182.92h,70.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spYYE39O0IZ2ymA7Jh-D-5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 is "supposed" to stop people crossing the highway (it doesn't!) & extends for several k, broken only by cross-streets, turning lanes & pedestrian crossings.

So how do we mark crossing=no along this entire stretch?

Draw the fence in & add a crossing tag to that? Would anything / anyone read it?

Crossing=no added to the road itself? Same thing applies.

Any other thoughts? (Or is there an obvious, simple solution that I'm missing :-))

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Tagging mailing list


On May 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

Draw the fence


Draw the fence. 

access=no 


if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right?

where people have made narrow footpaths (without breaking barriers, such as paths over a hill between two formal ways), then highway=path surface=ground informal=yes is how I tag those, though this might not be correct. 

But in this instance, you are talking about a barrier being ignored and jumped. simply do not map the crossings. 

javbw.

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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 20. May 2019, at 02:00, John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Draw the fence.


+1, I would also suggest for fences and walls to tag the height.


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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by osm.tagging
It's a little disappointing to see these points rehashed given the lengthy recent discussions, but at the risk of creating a new massive thread I'd like to clear some things up.

> "The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion."
> This statement is simply completely factually wrong.
> a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag

Yes, that was a silly typo/flub. It's been fixed.

> b) there are 2 distinct tags to describe the presence of traffic signals for the road way and foot/cycle way:
> highway=traffic_signals for signals controlling traffic on the road
> crossing=traffic_signals for signals controlling crossing pedestrians

If we acknowledge the typo, this isn't actually a contradiction. It's still the same value being used for both, everyone is still confused, and believe it or not, many in the previous thread explicitly stated that crossing=traffic_signals is not solely about signals controlling pedestrians, but implies signals controlling street traffic as well.

> "To make matters worse, it forces mappers to choose between tagging a crossing's markings, [...], or whether it has signalization."

> Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings (...)

Have you done an audit? It's easy to miss these things if you aren't directly concerned about them. There are several right in downtown Seattle, Washington by Westlake Park, if you want to see an example. Plenty of neat designs on the ground, but none are actually saying where the crossing is. I've seen the situation in New York and Montana, as well.

> And even if there should really be signal controlled crossings that on purpose do not have any road markings, I would consider that to be basically completely irrelevant (...)

I find this attitude surprising. Why not ask if anyone finds it relevant? This map isn't just for any single person.

- People with low vision use crosswalk markings to help navigate.
- Marked crossings assist in establishing a pedestrian space where car traffic should not stop (which is one of the reasons they are installed even when there are signals).
- Marked crossings increase pedestrian safety.

I, and many others, want to know when a crossing is marked or not.

> Deprecating a tag that has been used almost 600000 times and has widespread software support, just to replace it with a different tag that means exactly the same seems somewhat insane to me, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can guarantee to always vote no for this.

I would urge you to wait for responses before making up your mind.

As can be seen in the previous threads, none of the tags I've proposed mean "the exact same thing" as what currently exists, because the meaning and tagging of what exists is in no way agreed upon by even long-term expert mappers. crossing=uncontrolled has the unfortunate reality of not actually meaning "uncontrolled" and crossing="traffic_signals" says nothing about markings (in addition to confusion about what it even describes about signals).

Concerning the number of times the tag is used, consider that there are 33,000 marked crossings in my city (Seattle) alone. We have not mapped anywhere near enough marked crossings/signaled crossings: they are effectively unmapped for the vast majority of locations. Now is the perfect time to deprecate any bad tags: there is intense interest in mapping these typically unmapped features, but I can barely even tell people what to do in terms of tags. I've also tried to figure out what data consumers even do with the existing tags, particular those on nodes. I have found very few uses, which would make sense given the shoddy coverage: you certainly can't depend on them being mapped where they exist. Here's all that I know of:

- Adding a delay to car routing software, as the car might have to stop.

- Locally-scoped projects showing visual metaphors for "traffic signaled" and "uncontrolled/marked/whatever" on a base map.

- A 3D renderer that shows continental crossings wherever crossing=uncontrolled exists on a node.

I'm always interested to hear about more examples, but it's clear that coverage is poor, which will limit applications.

> I can agree with this one, but it's essentially a non-issue as this has already been done.

It's a successful example of orthogonalizing pedestrian crossing information away from this catch-all namespace.

> crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/

That comic is literally linked in the proposal about this very issue.

In practical usage, they clearly don't mean the same thing: it varies by the mapper and what tool they used. See the previous discussions in the list. Some folks even said they marked crossings as "uncontrolled" when there are merely curb ramps available. It's also clear that crossing=zebra has significant right-of-way (and marking type) implications in the UK and other countries following similar traffic systems that go well-beyond "marked".

> Looking at taginfo, there are already 168281 cases of crossing=marked right now, so the unfortunate reality is that we already have the case of 3 different values meaning the same thing and no matter how much you try to dictate the usage of a particular one by fiddling with the wiki, it's unlikely that there will ever be a day when all 3 aren't in widespread use synonymously.

Not unless we gather around a collective *single* standard and create strategies for updating existing tags, something that proposal does discuss (without depending on it).

> As such the best that can be done is to slightly adjust the wiki to document the reality that all 3 values are used synonymously.

Hard disagree, because they are not used synonymously. We want them to be, but that's because we know the thing we actually want to describe is merely whether there are markings on the ground and we've tried to make due with a garbage non-orthogonal tagging schema.


On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 9:32 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
"The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion."

This statement is simply completely factually wrong.

a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag

b) there are 2 distinct tags to describe the presence of traffic signals for the road way and foot/cycle way:

highway=traffic_signals for signals controlling traffic on the road
crossing=traffic_signals for signals controlling crossing pedestrians

"To make matters worse, it forces mappers to choose between tagging a crossing's markings, [...], or whether it has signalization."

Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced.

And even if there should really be signal controlled crossings that on purpose do not have any road markings, I would consider that to be basically completely irrelevant. The presence of signals that control traffic and pedestrian movement supersedes the meaning any road markings might have. If a signal controlled crossing has road markings or not does not in any way change its operation.

Deprecating a tag that has been used almost 600000 times and has widespread software support, just to replace it with a different tag that means exactly the same seems somewhat insane to me, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can guarantee to always vote no for this.

"Replacing crossing=island"

I can agree with this one, but it's essentially a non-issue as this has already been done. At most the wiki might need slight editing to make it more clear that the use of crossing=island has been deprecated.

"Replacing crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra with crossing=marked"

crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/

Looking at taginfo, there are already 168281 cases of crossing=marked right now, so the unfortunate reality is that we already have the case of 3 different values meaning the same thing and no matter how much you try to dictate the usage of a particular one by fiddling with the wiki, it's unlikely that there will ever be a day when all 3 aren't in widespread use synonymously.

As such the best that can be done is to slightly adjust the wiki to document the reality that all 3 values are used synonymously.

All this basically leaves the crossing key with the following possible values:

no - there is no crossing possible/legal here

unmarked - there are no road markings or traffic signals here, but this is a place where people are generally (legally) cross the road, e.g. because of lowered kerbs, or because the sidewalk on one side of the road stops here, or some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point.

uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian traffic that this is a designated crossing point

traffic_signals - there are traffic signals here that control traffic flow, it is extremely likely that there are also road markings, but their presence or absence is irrelevant as it would not change how the crossing operates

I think you'll find that any proposal that tries to completely throw over this well-established tagging scheme is doomed to failure.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 00:37
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related
> questions
>
> Hi Nick, hi everyone,
>
> I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and
> footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing
> tagging.
> Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far!
>
> I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about
> pedestrian crossing tagging in general:
>
>   * When the crossing type is tagged on the way (e.g.
> highway=footway
> + footway=crossing + crossing=marked + crossing:signals=yes), should
> the crossing type also be tagged (duplicated) on the crossing node
> or are routers able to get that information from the crossing ways?
>
>   * Should the road be split for short refuge islands into two one-
> way ways? This would result in unusual maps, especially at
> crossroads
> (example: [2]).
>
> [1]:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unambiguous_cr
> ossings
> [2]:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Crossroads_with_traffic_isl
> ands.png
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
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: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
> if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right?

Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no. I'd add crossing=no to that particular place in addition to your recommendations. This is a bit like the situation where mappers add buildings that don't exist from aerial imagery and diligent local mappers have to keep deleting them / adding notes / using a tagging scheme just to say, "this doesn't exist".

If that crossing location is illegal, which I would hope it is simply due to being so dangerous, even more reason to add crossing=no.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:02 PM John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:


On May 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

Draw the fence


Draw the fence. 

access=no 


if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right?

where people have made narrow footpaths (without breaking barriers, such as paths over a hill between two formal ways), then highway=path surface=ground informal=yes is how I tag those, though this might not be correct. 

But in this instance, you are talking about a barrier being ignored and jumped. simply do not map the crossings. 

javbw.
_______________________________________________
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: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Markus-5
Hey Markus,

This is a very good example that I somehow forgot to add to any of my replies / the wiki. Thank you for reminding me!

There are certainly many crossings that have pedestrian signals but are tagged with the flavor du jour of crossing=marked because the latter can be mapped from aerial imagery and the former has to be verified on the ground.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 18:32, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced.
>
> [...]
>
> crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/

While it may be true that there aren't any signal controlled
pedestrian crossing without road markings, the problem with
zebra/marked using the same key as traffic_signals is that mappers
(those that don't visit the place, don't have local knowledge and
likely haven't read the documentation) see a marked crossing on the
aerial imagery and tag it crossing=zebra/marked even if there are
traffic lights -- sometimes they even retag a crossing=traffic_signals
to crossing=zebra/marked. I've already corrected dozens of them, but
there are constantly new ones being wrongly added or retagged. While
crossing=unmarked/{uncontrolled|zebra|marked}/traffic_signals
theoretically may work, it doesn't in practice. I think that only
moving traffic lights and road markings to separate keys will solve
this problem.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
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: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

osm.tagging
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick

As far as I understand (I’ve never used the tag myself), the purpose of crossing=no (and it’s always used without a highway=crossing tag) is to make it clear that a node that based on context might be mistaken for a pedestrian crossing is not actually one.

 

e.g. if you have a highway=traffic_signals on a road node, but the signals are specifically only for road traffic, there are no pedestrian signals, and it is in some way indicated that pedestrian crossing is not allowed here, then you could tag that node with crossing=no

 

As for your specific example, I would draw the fence (as barrier=fence) and add the crossing=no tag to the road itself.

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 07:57
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

 


 

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 02:32, <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Pretty well agree with everything you said, Thorsten, but I'd like to clarify one point thanks.

 

no - there is no crossing possible/legal here

 

Understand the idea, but how do we actually use it?

 

The fence here https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0725198,153.4441123,3a,75y,182.92h,70.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spYYE39O0IZ2ymA7Jh-D-5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 is "supposed" to stop people crossing the highway (it doesn't!) & extends for several k, broken only by cross-streets, turning lanes & pedestrian crossings.

 

So how do we mark crossing=no along this entire stretch?

 

Draw the fence in & add a crossing tag to that? Would anything / anyone read it?

 

Crossing=no added to the road itself? Same thing applies.

 

Any other thoughts? (Or is there an obvious, simple solution that I'm missing :-))

 

Thanks

 

Graeme


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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten




On May 20, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:

Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no

if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag

put crossing=no on it. that should at least read as “mapped” to imagery tracers out there. 

similar to demolished=* on a line mapped over a bridge visible on imagery that has actually been destroyed. 

Javbw

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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

osm.tagging
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten

I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward.

 

From: Nick Bolten <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 10:48
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

 

It's a little disappointing to see these points rehashed given the lengthy recent discussions, but at the risk of creating a new massive thread I'd like to clear some things up.

 


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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
> if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it. 

Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an established strategy, I'd also be interested in making a new thread about it in the hopes of making it one.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:




On May 20, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:

Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no

if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag

put crossing=no on it. that should at least read as “mapped” to imagery tracers out there. 

similar to demolished=* on a line mapped over a bridge visible on imagery that has actually been destroyed. 

Javbw
_______________________________________________
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: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by osm.tagging
I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward.

Well, so much for community discussion. I will make appeals to those interested in hearing other points of view.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward.

 

From: Nick Bolten <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 10:48
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

 

It's a little disappointing to see these points rehashed given the lengthy recent discussions, but at the risk of creating a new massive thread I'd like to clear some things up.

 

_______________________________________________
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: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
> I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward.

Ah, and incidentally, I'd say I have the exact opposite problem: I reply to just about every single thread, quoting just about everything and attempting to take it into consideration.

Let's try to make this a productive discussion, not one laden with (for some reason primarily German-speaking-originating) disdain.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:20 PM Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
> if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it. 

Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an established strategy, I'd also be interested in making a new thread about it in the hopes of making it one.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM John Willis via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:




On May 20, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:

Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no

if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag

put crossing=no on it. that should at least read as “mapped” to imagery tracers out there. 

similar to demolished=* on a line mapped over a bridge visible on imagery that has actually been destroyed. 

Javbw
_______________________________________________
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: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
On 20/05/2019 06:20, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping,
> then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it.
>
> Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update
> the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an
> established strategy, I'd also be interested in making a new thread
> about it in the hopes of making it one.
>
Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there
aren't really) is certainly established.  As an example,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did
yesterday.  Historically I suspect that there was a legal right of way
across here (and there might still be, although there is nothing
signed), and there is gap in the barrier that appears to have been
created to allow crossing, but I wouldn't try it unless you fancy
playing "human frogger".

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:58, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there
aren't really) is certainly established.  As an example,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did
yesterday.  Historically I suspect that there was a legal right of way
across here (and there might still be, although there is nothing
signed), and there is gap in the barrier that appears to have been
created to allow crossing, but I wouldn't try it unless you fancy
playing "human frogger".

Nice one Andy!

Just wondering if that would be better as a description, or both note & description? 

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Nick Bolten
That is an interesting case!

Looking at mapillary, it looks like part of it is paved. I'm not sure whether that makes it a footway or not, but it looks incredibly dangerous to cross there: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.91808029997222&lng=-1.1642329000000018&z=17.363583160262273&focus=photo&pKey=Bn5q8Eay8Sar3ELAEaHXFg&x=0.5127641245746908&y=0.55074602568446&zoom=0

This is a case where I feel my own subjectivity comes into play when it comes to mapping: do I map a potentially unsafe crossing (sometimes the only one available for miles) and hope that data consumers contextualize it properly (a multi-part unmarked crossing on a primary highway) or do I dictate crossing=no / add notes? I don't feel confident in either option, personally, and actually tend to just not map it and hope for the best.

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 2:31 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:58, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there
aren't really) is certainly established.  As an example,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did
yesterday.  Historically I suspect that there was a legal right of way
across here (and there might still be, although there is nothing
signed), and there is gap in the barrier that appears to have been
created to allow crossing, but I wouldn't try it unless you fancy
playing "human frogger".

Nice one Andy!

Just wondering if that would be better as a description, or both note & description? 

Thanks

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

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