<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/10/2020 10:30, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MJupJVm--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div class="">On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="">
<div class="" dir="ltr">On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46,
Martin Koppenhoefer <<a rel="noopener noreferrer"
target="_blank" href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Generally, I would propose to only
tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but
refrain from access like tags on this node (no
bicycle or foot tags). The access should be
derived from the crossing ways.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This statement is only correct if there are
crossing ways using the crossing node.<br>
</div>
<div>However, in practical terms it happens very often
that in a first mapping of a road the foot and/or
bicycle crossings, as they are nicely visible on
aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not the crossing foot-
and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the details are not
visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not
interested, at that stage, in foot/cycling details.
And the distinction, at least in Italy, between
foot-only and combined foot-cycle crossing are well
visable on satellite imagery. Also traffic-signals are
often clearly visible because of the stop lines. Hence
in that first round it is easy to map crossings and
basic crossing types. The crossing way is then often
added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the
existing tagging on a crossing node when I add a
crossing way later.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's
call it a solitary crossings?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<div>What you mean by "solitary crossing"?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">I have been working on code to
detect types of crossing, so here you go.<br>
<br>
A node marked with highway=crossing that is part of:<br>
<br>
* one osm way that is not highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway
or equivalent and where the node is not the end of start of the
osm way<br>
* two osm ways that are both
highway=footway/pedestrian/cycleway or equivalent and where for
both osm ways the node is either the end or start of the osm way<br>
<br>
(Did leave out oneway osm ways)<br>
<br>
Anythings else is not a solitary crossing.<br>
Do you have a better name?</font></font><br>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>