[Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

António Madeira antoniomadeira at gmx.com
Wed Jun 10 20:51:18 UTC 2020

Às 17:16 de 10/06/2020, Jack Armstrong escreveu:
>     From: Clifford Snow
>     To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings.
>     Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.
>     1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway.
>     https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
>     2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the
>     type of crossing
>     https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
>     3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the
>     crossing and highway.
>     https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55
> Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference,
> #1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a
> node for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's
> "one feature, one OSM element" rule.
> #2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I
> started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to
> have the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon)
> #3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red
> dot? This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node.
> This is an example of how I prefer to map pedestrian crossings (this
> is common throughout downtown Denver):
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.72565/-104.98501
> Here are two methods I mapped as a demonstration of mapping that I
> feel is correct, as well. Mapped here are two different methods that
> seem reasonable, tagging either the connecting node or tagging the
> way; but not tagging both the node and the way. Tagging both the node
> and the way would seem to violate the  "one feature, one OSM element"
> rule.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.71293/-104.98038
> Cheers
> Jack Armstrong
> (chachafish)

Using footway=sidewalk on a highway crossing is not a legit way of
mapping this. You can not substitute something that seems wrong for a
certainly wrong tag.
I understand your issue, as I always had the same problem about
footway=crossing, and that's why I only use it when creating routable
ways for pedestrians, but unless you can convince routing software to
recognize a highway=crossing point as a crossover to pedestrians (with
out a line) I don't see how this can be undone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200610/c577275d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list