[Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

bkil bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com
Sat Oct 27 19:23:16 UTC 2018


Hungarian rules are similar to what Jyri-Petteri Paloposki described
above (traffic light + vertical sign + road stripes + stop/give_way
can be present for the same crossing). We have an extra twist, in that
bicycles at crossings generally do not have precedence.

Priority here is similar to what Martin Koppenhoefer describes for Italy.

I agree with the splendid detailed tag interpretation of yo paseopor.
I went all the way and copy&pasted your message to a new proposal for
RFC, so we can all draft & approve it:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposals/Document_pedestrian_crossing_hierarchy

"Designated pedestrian crossing" and "traffic light controlled
designated pedestrian crossing" are the official terminology here,
although laypeople understand "zebra" as any kind of pedestrian
crossing.

> "How would you tag the absence of traffic signals?"
>

crossing=uncontrolled had just this meaning - not controlled or
arranged by any device but instead always negotiated in situ between
traffic participants. Other terms for the same meaning would be
"ad-hoc", "random", "spontaneous". Not to be confused with "on
demand", that should be an option for traffic signals that can be
influenced by pedestrians via a button (button_operated=*) or by
vehicles using metal detector loops (traffic_signals:detector=*?).

It should definitely not be understood as a synonym for "unmarked".
I'll try to clarify this one on the wiki.

The top web search result also confirms this interpretation of "uncontrolled":

http://www.apwa-mn.org/userfiles/ckfiles/files/SafetyConsiderationsUncontrolledPedestrianCrossings.pdf

> "And what about the absence of road markings?"
>

`crossing_ref=unmarked` has quite a number of occurrences and sounds a
reasonable proposal. I understand that you would like to map those
crossings for which vertical signs have been erected, but no road
marking have been painted. I probably wouldn't map those crossings
that are not present on the ground either.

We may map these by simply adding the respective tag on the traffic lights:
give_way=yes
stop=yes

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 3:43 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<matkoniecz at tutanota.com> wrote:
>
> 26. Oct 2018 12:44 by t.pfeifer at computer.org:
>
> On 26.10.2018 09:28, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a
> subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no?
>
>
> Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one with crossing=* + crossing_ref=* ?
>
>
> Because crossing attempts to map several orthogonal things at once, as discussed in this thread.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



More information about the Tagging mailing list