[Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

[Nick Bolten]

> if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist,
right?

Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative
information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no. I'd add
crossing=no to that particular place in addition to your recommendations.
This is a bit like the situation where mappers add buildings that don't
exist from aerial imagery and diligent local mappers have to keep deleting
them / adding notes / using a tagging scheme just to say, "this doesn't
exist".

If that crossing location is illegal, which I would hope it is simply due
to being so dangerous, even more reason to add crossing=no.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:02 PM John Willis via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
> On May 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Draw the fence
>
>
>
> Draw the fence.
>
> access=no
>
>
> if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist,
> right?
>
> where people have made narrow footpaths (without breaking barriers, such
> as paths over a hill between two formal ways), then highway=path
> surface=ground informal=yes is how I tag those, though this might not be
> correct.
>
> But in this instance, you are talking about a barrier being ignored and
> jumped. simply do not map the crossings.
>
> javbw.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190519/a868eb7f/attachment.html>