[Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Wed Jun 10 12:08:16 UTC 2020

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:54 AM Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong <jacknstacy at sprynet.com> wrote:
>> I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect?
> I don't know if it is "correct" or not, but the footway=crossing tagging is part of the Sidewalk as separate way proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Crossings.
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

The technology that current routers use would have a fair amount of
trouble simply deducing from the crossing cycleway that a motorist
would need to avoid a crossing. Still, on a detailed map, it may well
be desirable to map the dimensions of the crossing and add tags for
pavement markings, kerbs (I hope not, but you never know in some
places!), tactile pavement, and so on.  As someone in the Slack
discussion pointed out, you do have two "things" - the linear
cycleway, which changes characteristics when it's on the highway
surface, and the point that represents the interaction between highway
and cycleway - the crossing as seen by a motorist (or a motor router).

As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for
instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that
the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most
notably, its full geometry!) can belong only to a way.

More information about the Tagging mailing list