[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals
Nick Bolten
nbolten at gmail.com
Tue May 7 21:08:38 UTC 2019
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing:signals
Hello fellow tagging enthusiasts!
This proposal suggests the deprecation of crossing=traffic_signals and
replacing it with crossing:signals=yes, i.e. placing pedestrian
signalization on a dedicated tag that is separate from crossing=* values.
The current values for the crossing=* tag are not orthogonal:
crossing=traffic_signals is not actually orthogonal to
crossing=uncontrolled or crossing=unmarked, for example. This presents a
significant challenge to understanding the meaning of these tags and in
creating properly descriptive tags on map elements. For example, let's take
three attributes of a pedestrian crossing: signalization for pedestrians,
signalization for traffic, and markings on the ground. What do
crossing=uncontrolled/unmarked/traffic_signals say about these scenarios?
crossing=uncontrolled:
- signalization for pedestrians is undefined
- signalization for traffic *should* not exist, but due to confusions
over the meaning of the tag, might.
- markings are implied, but due to confusions over the meaning of the
tag, might not not.
crossing=unmarked:
- signalization for pedestrians is undefined
- signalization for traffic is undefined
- there are no markings
crossing=traffic_signals
- signalization for pedestrians: yes
- signalization for traffic is undefined
- markings are undefined
So, you can see the problem: the values are describing completely different
things and the rest is ambiguous.
I'm interested in any/all feedback regarding this tag proposal! Thank you
for your time!
Best,
Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190507/59ddb603/attachment.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list