[Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
wrote:

>
> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
>
> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?
>
> This is a very popular situation in Poland.
>

I knew there'd be at least one.  :)

Motorists have right of way if their signal is green; pedestrians have
> absolute
> right of way just by stepping on the crossing irrespective of the lights.
> Does not compute.
>
> Note that legal implications of zebra stripes differ vastly across the
> world.
>

OK, so let me ask this.  Do zebra stripes on their own have any legal
significance?  Can
you have zebra stripes without lights or are they only ever present with
lights?

If you can have zebra stripes without lights that mean something different
to zebra stripes
with lights, that could be a problem for the blind.  But if you can that
complicates matters a
lot.  And still means that making markings and lights orthogonal is a bad
idea if the markings
have two different meanings depending on whether or not lights are
present.  Because then
we need to ensure we distinguish between "these zebra stripes mean
pedestrians have
priority" and "these zebra stripes do not mean pedestrians have priority"
to avoid potential
mistagging.  If zebras only occur in Poland with lights then it's just a
crossing=traffic_lights.
And yes, that would raise problems for people mapping from aerial imagery
if the stripes can
have different meanings.

-- 
Paul



-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190524/bbfd079e/attachment-0001.html>