[Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Nick Bolten]

> I have checked out your proposal...and I don't know what is the
difference with a crossing=marked (yours) and a crossing=uncontrolled (in
OSM)

crossing=marked indicates that a crossing has markings. That's it: the
"type" of crossing is declared to be whether it has markings on the ground
or not.

crossing=uncontrolled has very unclear meanings. You can see from this and
the thread about crossing:signals=* that there are at least 4 different
definitions used by veteran-ish OSM mappers, despite most of them saying
"of course it means my version". To expound, there are multiple ways in
which "uncontrolled" has problems in terms of understanding meaning:

(1) The term "uncontrolled" is a transit nerd term. Almost nobody uses this
word outside of a select few circles. New mappers have no idea what it
means (though veteran mappers also seem to disagree with one another) and
make an *incorrect* guess, assuming it means the same as unmarked.

(2)  the crossing tag, as currently documented, has values that imply
meanings regarding right-of-way, markings on the ground, and
pedestrian/traffic signals (it's hard to tell what the latter even means,
honestly, which is why I have that proposal). That's three totally
different categories that are meant to be summed up in one tag value and
the current values don't even cover the full combination. "uncontrolled"
does not actually say anything about right-of-way, per the OpenStreetMap
wiki.

(3) However, the real-world meaning of "uncontrolled" is entirely about
right-of-way based on "controls" for street traffic. Essentially, it's the
polar opposite of the OpenStreetMap usage. Anyone who attempts to look up
the term "uncontrolled" outside of the OpenStreetMap will come away with
the exact wrong meaning and map the data incorrectly.

> I don't agree with you. I think you are forgotten all the other items to
tag and the others tagging schemes in OSM. Kerbs are not for cars,
cycleways are not for cars. And there are other traffic lights rather than
car traffic lights.

I don't think I understand what you mean by this. Could you please rephrase?

> It is not true. There is a wiki and also a iD which can help to
undesrtand the tagging scheme and making easier to tag that crossing.

The iD editor never uses crossing=uncontrolled. It actually uses
crossing=marked now. It is at odds with the wiki, and what the wiki says is
very different from what many people on this mailing list say
crossing=uncontrolled means.

> What is the proposal: translate crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked?

Only after robust discussion with local communities and with their
approval. I am not recommending any automated edits whatsoever as part of
this proposal, only suggesting that it might be possible in limited
regions, with community assent (and following all of the other protocols
regarding machine edits). I anticipate that many US-based communities would
be open to converting crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra to
crossing=marked, at a minimum, given how frequently they've been edited
with iD.



I split this message in two because it was too long - I'm sending another
reply shortly.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:26 PM yo paseopor <yopaseopor at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have checked out your proposal...and I don't know what is the difference
> with a crossing=marked (yours) and a crossing=uncontrolled (in OSM)
> I don't agree with you. I think you are forgotten all the other items to
> tag and the others tagging schemes in OSM. Kerbs are not for cars,
> cycleways are not for cars. And there are other traffic lights rather than
> car traffic lights.
>
> > It is also virtually impossible for any new user to know what tags to
> use and what they mean
> It is not true. There is a wiki and also a iD which can help to undesrtand
> the tagging scheme and making easier to tag that crossing.
>
> > This proposal only concerns crossing=uncontrolled (as well as the
> still-in-use crossing=zebra)
> What is the proposal: translate crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked?
>
> > Are you saying that all crossings with markings should be tagged,
> "uncontrolled"?
> If there is not any control of the crossing...yes otherwise should be
> crossing=traffic_signals or supervised=yes as you can read in the wiki.
>
> > Note that crossing=traffic_light does not imply whether there are
> markings on the ground
> Well, in my country it is, when there is a traffic signals with pedestrian
> traffic signal there is a crossing=traffic_signals. Otherwise is
> crossing=no because there is no crossing at all.
>
> >does the crossing have markings? Does the crossing have a pedestrian
> signal? Does the crossing have a "controlled" status (or, perhaps better,
> this can be inferred from other properties like crossing_ref, because
> nobody has any idea what "controlled" means, apparently)?
>
> Change the questions:
> -Is there any traffic signal in the crossing?
> -Is there any supervision in the crossing?
> -Is there any mark in the crossing?
>
> A crossing=marked would not inform if it is supervised, and also if is
> there a pedestrian traffic signal controlled crossing.
>
> > However, traffic_calming=island describes the island itself. For a
> pedestrian way, use crossing:island=yes
> No , for a pedestrian way which passes inside an island I have
> footway=crossing because there si a footway inside a island. I don't need a
> tag which says things I can see in the situation for the map. It is the
> same reason I don't need crossing=marked if I have crossing=uncontrolled.
> Mark is not a control.
>
> > I mean, they are in current use, but putting that aside, that is the
> point of this proposal: we should be using a specific tag for markings.
> Well, we have it and it is called crossing_ref.
>
> > I'm attempting to build community consensus by writing a proposal and
> then explaining it on this mailing list.
> I was talking about crossing=zebra issue.
>
> > Yes, and I've tried many, many times.
> Tell me one situation you cannot map in detail with present tagging scheme.
>
> This is my point of view.
> Health and maps (Salut i mapes)
> yopaseopor
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:50 PM Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I don't know why we need a new tag scheme.
>>
>> Please check out my proposal, as I've laid out several reasons. As
>> someone who has personally mapped thousands of crossings, the current
>> schema is absolute garbage for reliably collecting accurate data that can
>> be reliably interpreted by data consumers that aren't solely focused on car
>> routing. It is also virtually impossible for any new user to know what tags
>> to use and what they mean. You can see in this thread as well as the one in
>> my other proposal regarding signals that even veteran, expert OSM users
>> have different ideas on what "crossing=uncontrolled" means.
>>
>> > crossing=no (prohibited)
>> > crossing=yes (most generic)
>> > crossing=traffic_light is with traffic lights. So implies
>> crossing=controlled.
>> > crossing=controlled is with traffic signs or with police people or
>> similar (it does not matter the marks because of the laws. Traffic signs
>> are more important than road marks, and, in conflict you have to obey the
>> traffic sign not the road mark.)
>>
>> This proposal only concerns crossing=uncontrolled (as well as the
>> still-in-use crossing=zebra).
>>
>> > crossing=uncontrolled but with marks. So one of them implies
>> crossing=uncontrolled
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by "so one of them implies
>> crossing=uncontrolled"? Are you saying that all crossings with markings
>> should be tagged, "uncontrolled"? What if they have pedestrian signal
>> lights? That's a crossing that has both, implying a contradiction.
>>
>> Note that crossing=traffic_light does not imply whether there are
>> markings on the ground. That's the whole problem: these tags cover
>> information regarding at least 3 discrete categories of information, but do
>> not themselves contain the full gamut of combinations nor even all 3 in
>> every value: (1) markings on the ground, (2) the "controlled" status, and
>> (3) the existence of a pedestrian signal. These should be separate
>> questions a mapper can easily answer: does the crossing have markings? Does
>> the crossing have a pedestrian signal? Does the crossing have a
>> "controlled" status (or, perhaps better, this can be inferred from other
>> properties like crossing_ref, because nobody has any idea what "controlled"
>> means, apparently)?
>>
>> > If there is a traffic island in the crossing you can tag
>> traffic_calming=island (you can read in the wiki crossing=island is a  broken
>> tagging scheme .
>>
>> Yes, and I'm thankful that SelfishSeahorse led the effort to fix that
>> tag. The two proposals I've announced are related to breaking out these
>> non-orthogonal crossings tags, similar to crossing=island. However,
>> traffic_calming=island describes the island itself. For a pedestrian way,
>> use crossing:island=yes.
>>
>> > And then there are the crossing_ref
>>
>> This is outside the scope of this proposal, aside from the fact that if
>> crossing=marked is used, it creates an opportunity to use a straightforward
>> subtag for different marking types that are currently tagged as
>> crossing_ref. Try explaining to virtually anyone why the crossing type is
>> called, "crossing_ref". What's a ref? What does it mean to apply a ref to a
>> crossing? With that said, this proposal does not hinge on this, it's just
>> an opportunity for a different proposal down the line.
>>
>> > But there is no crossing=zebra or crossing=marked.
>>
>> I mean, they are in current use, but putting that aside, that is the
>> point of this proposal: we should be using a specific tag for markings.
>>
>> > I know some editor software and renders are very important for OSM, but
>> doing whatever you want avoiding community consensus can generate these
>> problems.
>>
>> I'm attempting to build community consensus by writing a proposal and
>> then explaining it on this mailing list.
>>
>> > Are you sure we need a new tagging scheme for crossings?
>>
>> I am absolutely positive.
>>
>> > Are you sure there is not other existing way to map whatever you want
>> with the present tagging scheme?
>>
>> Yes, and I've tried many, many times.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:38 AM yo paseopor <yopaseopor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why we need a new tag scheme.
>>>
>>> I remember my explanation of the question and the adaptation of the
>>> possibilities. I repeat them here:
>>>
>>> crossing=no (prohibited)
>>> crossing=yes (most generic)
>>>
>>> crossing=traffic_light is with traffic lights. So implies
>>> crossing=controlled.
>>> crossing=controlled is with traffic signs or with police people or
>>> similar (it does not matter the marks because of the laws. Traffic signs
>>> are more important than road marks, and, in conflict you have to obey the
>>> traffic sign not the road mark.)
>>> crossing=uncontrolled but with marks. So one of them implies
>>> crossing=uncontrolled
>>> crossing=unmarked with no marks, with no control, but crossing
>>>
>>> If there is a traffic island in the crossing you can tag
>>> traffic_calming=island (you can read in the wiki crossing=island is a  broken
>>> tagging scheme .
>>>
>>> And then there are the crossing_ref
>>>
>>> zebra is marked but uncontrolled (if it is controlled you can use other
>>> value)
>>> pelican,panda,tigger,toucan,pegasus are controlled with traffic lights
>>> pelican and panda is only with traffic lights .Pelican is the evolution
>>> of panda
>>> tigger means bicycle=designated and toucan means bicycle=yes.
>>> pegasus means horse=designated
>>>  (all of these are from U.K.)
>>>
>>> But there is no crossing=zebra or crossing=marked.
>>> I know some editor software and renders are very important for OSM, but
>>> doing whatever you want avoiding community consensus can generate these
>>> problems.
>>> Are you sure we need a new tagging scheme for crossings? Are you sure
>>> there is not other existing way to map whatever you want with the present
>>> tagging scheme?
>>>
>>> I don't think so
>>> Health and maps (Salut i mapes)
>>> yopaseopor
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:51 AM marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 07.05.19 à 22:57, Nick Bolten a écrit :
>>>> > - crossing=* values are not truly orthogonal and this needs to be
>>>> > addressed. e.g., "uncontrolled", "traffic_signals", and "unmarked"
>>>> are
>>>> > not truly orthogonal descriptors.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that you read the discussion I started in December about
>>>> crossing=zebra because it is the main cause of the current situation.
>>>> Bryan replaced crossing=zebra with crossing=marked in iD but as the
>>>> crossing=zebra problems were not understood, the alternative has
>>>> exactly
>>>> the same problems as the replaced solution.
>>>> the crossing key is however simple to use except for badly chosen values
>>>> does the passage have a fire? crossing=traffic_signals
>>>> otherwise, does the passage have a marking on the ground?
>>>> crossing=uncontrolled (the work is not perfect because a marking a kind
>>>> of controll)
>>>> otherwise crossing=unmarked
>>>>
>>>> >    - There is fragmentation in tag usage for marked crossings between
>>>> > "zebra" and "uncontrolled".
>>>>
>>>> Last year, I have review ~1k crossing=zebra,
>>>> the fragmentation is mainly due to iD
>>>>
>>>> >    - crossing=marked is direct and clear about its meaning and use
>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> for now, the "new" iD preset destroys perfectly valid data
>>>> at a frightening rate!
>>>> if someone modifies a pedestrian crossing with a light, iD replaces it
>>>> with crossing=marked, which disrupts the information of the presence of
>>>> the light.
>>>> There is already a tag for the reference of a crossing.
>>>> if the reference is not known, it would be easy to use crossing_ref=yes
>>>> as it is done with many keys.
>>>>
>>>> > - crossing=marked is already in use and supported by various editors,
>>>> > including being the default in iD
>>>>
>>>> a bad preset is not a good usage
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Marc
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190509/bfd4b1bb/attachment-0001.html>