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

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:50, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/05/19 07:32, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> We also have;
> tactile paving - a sequence of small raised bumps/dots on the paving that
> can be sensed by walkers/wheelchairs
>

Indeed.  In my town most designated crossings have those in combination
with drop kerbs.

They're used at crossing=traffic_signals.  They're used at zebra
crossings.  They're used
at unmarked crossings with a refuge in the centre of the road.  They're
used at unmarked
crossings.  Equally, though, all of those crossing types may not have
either drop kerbs or
tactile paving.  They usually do.  These days they may even be a legal
requirement (I haven't
checked).  But they don't change the interaction between driver and
pedestrian.

I don't consider them a type of crossing
(lights/markings/controlled/unmarked) but something which
may or may not be present at a crossing.  They don't change the rules of
engagement between
pedestrians and vehicles.  Useful to map as additional information but not,
of themselves, a
type of crossing.


audio warning - the button also has an audio output that signals when the
> traffic lights state to allow pedestrian crossing, and just before the
> pedestrian crossing closes.
>

Also vibrating button in Germany, rotating cone in the UK.  The rotating
cone is legally required where
the audio warning is legally prohibited, optional in other cases.
Inapplicable to anything but
crossings with traffic lights.  Additional information, not a crossing
type.  Other countries have
similar things.  Most of this is documented in the Wiki and we have tags
for it.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190525/fa0b56cd/attachment.html>