<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-07-22 11:43, André Pirard wrote
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53CE322B.4020500@gmail.com" type="cite">I have
mentioned without much follow-up a similar issue with
highway=crossing + crossing=*.<br>
What OSM calls "crossing", zebra stripes, is in fact a "passage
pour piétons" which does not necessarily cross.<br>
In Belgium (too), we have quite a number of "passages pour
piétons" painted longitudinally and it makes sense.<br>
Children's safety, for example, is just as important if they have
to walk alongside on the road.<br>
Or it may be painted across a parking lot, in which case mapping
highway=crossing ways make sense.<br>
crossing=* alone (which, as a highway=* tag implicitly means
highway:crossing) is sufficient.<br>
<br>
So, I am proposing:<br>
<ul>
<li>to allow crossing=* on any highway=* when the painting is
longitudinal</li>
<li>crossing:right=yes, crossing:left=yes in that case<br>
</li>
<li>highway=crossing for a way painted across an area<br>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
In summary of the replies that were received:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have tagged, occasionally, longitudinal
"zebra" markings as designated foot-way, which seems to me better
than "crossing" on ways.<br>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately, this is incorrect and even "tagging for the
renderer".<br>
A foot-way is for exclusive usage by pedestrian while cars can drive
on a "pedestrian passage".<br>
<br>
The objections were all based on a misunderstanding.<br>
A "pedestrian passage" is made for the pedestrians to safely walk on
the highway where the vehicles run.<br>
That's generally for crossing but not exclusively.<br>
<br>
Below is a school access where the children first cross the main
road and then cross too, but longitudinally, the way that parents
follow after dropping their children.<br>
Further below are more kinds of unusual pedestrian passages.<br>
<br>
It is not because those passages (and pictures) are rare, because
they would exist (mainly?) outside of the UK and because the word
"crossing" is deceptively too restrictive that OSM should not
support them.<br>
<br>
Hence my proposition to support pedestrian passages on ways and even
areas too.<br>
Regarding the word "crossing", no need to vote an additional
framework in which the node would duplicate "crossing", it is
sufficient to clearly (re)define it. Let's point out that they
always cross something and that it's no weirder than
source:speedmax=zone30 or many things like that.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div align="center"><img src="cid:part1.03020404.00080907@gmail.com"
alt=""><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<img alt="Crossing"
src="https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/529707_379452988772468_304655380_n.jpg"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="400" height="256"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<img alt="Crossing"
src="http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/2151402563993.jpg"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="630" height="360"><br>
<br>
<br>
<img alt="C"
src="http://www.lesoir.be/sites/default/files/imagecache/475x317/2012/10/09/816656018_ID3414785_09_saintgilles_101940_024HP1_0.JPG"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="475" height="317"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>