<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 18, 2021, 08:36 by minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Vào lúc 10:48 2021-05-17, Georg đã viết:<br></div><blockquote><div>Hi Mateusz,<br></div><blockquote><div>In some cases people may want to map pedestrian crossing<br></div><div>also as an area.<br></div><div><br></div><div>For example see<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/655343334<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/655410319<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/654981687<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Without knowing the 3 objects in situ, in maps and aerial imagery they<br></div><div>do look like 3 usual crossings. Like all crossings, they do have a<br></div><div>certain length and width, i.e. as geometric shape, all crosssings are<br></div><div>not a line but an area (mostly squares) just like streets, waterways<br></div><div>etc. But in OSM sense, why shall these 3 not seen as line but areas?<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'd better understand "area" for crossings like<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.00152/8.25936 which in contrast<br></div><div>to an X-crossing (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble)<br></div><div>has not just 6 lines interconnecting 4 points, but where you can go from<br></div><div>any point to any point.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Aside from pedestrian scrambles, I frequently encounter opportunities to map crossing areas in the parking lots of big box stores such as Walmart in the U.S. A crosshatched area may run along the perimeter road of a parking lot, spanning the intersections of multiple parking aisles. Here are some examples that I and others have mapped as area:highway=footway footway=crossing, by analogy with linear crossing ways<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/944121524 (clearest in Bing imagery)<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/657494224 (Mapbox or OSIP 6in imagery)<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/944124257 (Mapbox or OSIP 6in, note the nonrectangular shape)<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/944128107 (Bing, note adjacent linear crossing)<br></div><div><br></div><div>If these crossings or pedestrian scrambles can be represented as areas, then I see no reason why more linear crossings couldn't also be represented as areas as a form of micromapping. However, linear crossings should also be represented by highway=footway ways, just as highway=residential would need to accompany any area:highway=residential.<br></div></blockquote><div>I really like<br></div><div>area:highway=footway footway=crossing<br></div><div>tagging, maybe I switch to this one.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(if entire idea of tagging such features is a bad idea then it is the best moment to protest and<br></div><div>explain why)<br></div> </body>
</html>