[Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Bryan Housel bhousel at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 23:18:35 UTC 2018

Oh!  I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either.  Not sure whether you caught the end of that issue #4788, but anyway I've decided I'm tired of hearing people complain about `crossing=zebra` so going forward iD will support these 2 presets: 

- `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk"  
- `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing” 

`crossing=zebra` is still supported as a legacy, unsearchable preset, so things will still look the same.

(these changes will go live with the next version of iD, whenever that will be released)


> On Oct 25, 2018, at 5:39 PM, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a big issue with crossing=zebra.
> it prevent to fill in the other value for crossing like 
> crossing=traffic_signals crossing=uncontrolled
> the wiki [1] said that crossing=zebra is a shortchut for 
> crossing=uncontrolled + crossing_ref=zebra in the UK
> but a lot of zebra also in UK and outside UK have traffic_signals
> and must be tagged with crossing=traffic_signals
> so at the end, crossing=zebra has no meaning... maybe the previous 
> contributor mean crossing=uncontrolled + crossing_ref=zebra
> but maybe he mean only crossing_ref=zebra
> I fix a few week a lot of crossing=zebra crossing_1=traffic_signals
> or crossing=zebra;traffic_signals that show it's an issue.
> a issue was closed in iD [2] some time ago because "the dev dislike 
> crossing_ref" (it is in fact a very ugly name for the tag)
> right now josm [3] is changing preset to drop cossing_ref=zebra
> in favor of crossing=zebra
> I am part of a group of a group of mappers working on accessibility
> are planning to open a talk to fix it but the news of the commit flow 
> preceded us
> so my request is : how to avoid again a multi-meaning tag ?
> may/must we separate the type of crossing from the ground marking ?
> in short : move away crossing=zebra in another tag ? if yes
> is crossing_Re so ugly than in the same time another tag need
> to be used for the ground marking ?
> let's avoid the argument of "there are too many cases to fix",
> it doesn't scare me to propose a mass edition once a coherent scheme
> has been found. but having half tools that fill a value with another 
> meaning than other or historical meaning is a big issue for the use
> of the data.
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing
> [2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4788
> [3] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/16793
> Regards,
> Marc
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list