<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>This is not in line with hat others have suggested, and invalidating 2.5 million existing crossing=* tags (everything with a value different from yes/no) is a complete no go.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition, is to leave the existing tag untouched (it seems to work fine for most people except you), and tag the special exception where a crossing=traffic_signals doesn’t have road markings with crossing:markings=no<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>What can be done here is to basically define that the different crossing=* values imply default values for various other tags (the same way as the wiki currently already documents what e.g. crossing=zebra or crossing=pelican implies).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Nick Bolten <nbolten@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, 25 May 2019 03:55<br><b>To:</b> Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In contrast, crossing:markings=yes/no would let us avoid making decisions about the "type" of crossing entirely. If it were swapped out for the crossing=marked/unmarked proposal, it would result in this schema for crossings:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>crossing=no (for crossings that should be specifically called out as not doable/allowed)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>crossing:markings=yes/no<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>crossing:signals=yes/no<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>crossing_ref=* (unchanged)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There has also been the suggestion that crossing=* could be left unchanged, and these two new tags added as alternatives. I like that this potentially avoids conflict and therefore makes it easier to start mapping this data separately, but think it would result in competing schemas and redundant data.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So, what are you thoughts? Is crossing:markings=yes/no better than crossing=marked/unmarked? Are there any downsides/upsides I've missed? If crossing:markings were preferable, what should happen to the crossing=* tag?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>