<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">24 May 2019, 22:25 by osm.tagging@thorsten.engler.id.au:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise?<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a physical presence (e.g. lowered kerbs).<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Or where sidewalks are mapped separately from road as highway=footway</div> </body>
</html>