[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 06:53, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> This is topical, as crossing=traffic_signals is often claimed to imply
> crossing=marked.
>

It is?  I hadn't noticed.  I take a very different view, that
crossing=traffic_signals says that
the crossing is controlled by traffic signals.  There may or may not be
markings.  Those
markings may or may not be similar to markings at crossings without traffic
signals but,
if the lights are functioning those markings have no legal significance and
do not
determine rights of way.

I, like some others here, think it rather obsessive of you to insist on
mapping what we
consider to be an irrelevancy.  The crossing is CONTROLLED by the lights
and that
is the important factor.  Sure, if you can come up with something that
isn't disruptive and
has other benefits, then it MAY be worth coming up with a tagging scheme
that allows
us to indicate whether a crossing controlled by lights also has markings.

At best, all I've seen indicates that maybe editors should make it clearer
to mappers if
they change a crossing tagged as traffic signals to one with markings that
perhaps they're
using aerial imagery to undo what somebody has verified on the ground.  I
don't deny that
such edits may be a problem, I'm not convinced your proposal is the best
solution.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190520/851dcd50/attachment.html>