<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Have you tried writing to them using changeset comment?<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Oct 17, 2022, 20:17 by rob@hubris.org.uk:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have decided to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most of which I have surveyed and mapped, with the following innovations:<br></div><div><br></div><div>1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have tactile paving along their entire length. This may be a result of copying all the tags from the crossing node to the way, but could be unhelpful for any data consumers which expect tactile_paving=* to work as documented.<br></div><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways<br></div><div><br></div><div>2) removing crossing=no from highway=traffic_signals nodes where there is either no crossing or a crossing which is mapped as a separate node. It's not a necessary tag, but it's been used as documented in the 'How to map' section of the wiki. I've added a sentence to the wiki for crossing=no referring to highway=traffic_signals<br></div><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#How_to_map_(new)<br></div><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=prev&oldid=2421754<br></div><div><br></div><div>3) replacing traffic_signals=traffic_lights with the less-specific traffic_signals=signal and traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing with the undocumented traffic_signals=crossing<br></div><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm happy for my edits to be corrected when I make mistakes or misread the wiki, which I'm sure happens more often than I imagine. However, it's rather annoying to lose data to what appears to be an undiscussed and potentially misguided personal project.<br></div><div><br></div><div>On 27/09/2022 07:42, Robert Skedgell wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming the crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my assumption has been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If a visually impaired user is being told to expect additional islands or refuges where none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This wiki appears to agree with this:<br></div><div>"Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the traffic island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common with larger intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic lane in each direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches of highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged with footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections can optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in case you are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to explicitly mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands."<br></div><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island<br></div><div><br></div><div>I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. Perhaps I should?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Tagging mailing list<br></div><div>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>