<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>To be clear - I am not really planning to make a vote (partially because it is quite <br></div><div dir="auto">experimental and I am not 100% sure that it is a good idea).<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree that such mapping makes sense only in few places.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">> My gut reaction is that pedestrian crossings can be adequately modeled <br></div><div dir="auto">> as a center line and width (similar to roads with width and/or lane tagging).<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I also considered this. The problems are:<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">- centerline of footway is not necessarily center of crossing area,<br></div><div dir="auto">sometimes crossing area is significantly offset<br></div><div dir="auto">- there is good way to handle cases of multimodal crossings such as<br></div><div dir="auto">crossing of highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=yes<br></div><div dir="auto">with separate spaces for cycleway and footway crossing<br></div><div><br></div><div>Jan 13, 2022, 18:01 by zelonewolf@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>My gut reaction is that pedestrian crossings can be adequately modeled as a center line and width (similar to roads with width and/or lane tagging). While mappers are free to innovate and come up with new ways to map in increasingly greater detail and specificity, I think that the "approved" tag that ends up on the wiki after an approved proposal sends a specific signal to mappers. And that signal is not just "this is the community recommendation on how to tag X" but also, and the point I want to express here, that "feature X should be mapped".<br></div><div><br></div><div>I feel that a pedestrian crossing areas (in US English I'd describe this as "the area of a crosswalk") fits into a category that's increasingly described as "nano mapping". I seem to recall somebody proposed to tag the area of individual road markings - the dashes and arrows and so forth painted on the road, and I see this as a similar "nano" feature. I'm confident that there are plenty of other things left to map in the world before we need people individually tracing painted road markings just to keep busy, so there should be no rush to apply that green "Approved" label.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Until there is some reasonable critical mass in terms of data consumer support and feature proliferation in the map, I think we should avoid approving tagging schemes for nano-mapping, and instead allow such mapping to continue growing organically in order to learn what innovations result from it. The use of nano-mapped features is still in its infancy, and I suspect it would be a mistake to approve tagging for it until we're able to fully embrace how these features fit into the big picture and how the data consumer needs stack up against them.<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</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><div dir="auto">Comments are welcome on<br></div><div dir="auto"><a target="_blank" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pedestrian_crossing_as_an_area" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pedestrian_crossing_as_an_area</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is about a tagging for mapping of crossings in extreme detail.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Feedback is welcomed especially as I have not noticed that there is no accepted tagging<br></div><div dir="auto">scheme for such features.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I though that there is one and I am using it, but in<br></div><div dir="auto"><a target="_blank" href="https://github.com/matkoniecz/lunar_assembler/issues/26" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://github.com/matkoniecz/lunar_assembler/issues/26</a> I was made aware<br></div><div dir="auto">that I was mistaken.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Review is especially appreciated now as I am not entirely sure whether I will send<br></div><div dir="auto">the proposal for voting.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am much more interested in arguments for/against <br></div><div dir="auto">some solutions - or even the very idea of such mapping, than in yes/no votes.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Please do not wait with comments for a vote.<br></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div> Tagging mailing list<br></div><div> <a target="_blank" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br></div><div> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>